MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1848546139 · doi:10.1177/160940690900800305

Technique Triangulation for Validation in Directed Content Analysis

2009· article· en· W1848546139 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent analysisTriangulationTypologyCoding (social sciences)Representation (politics)Context (archaeology)Computer sciencePsychologyContent (measure theory)NothingSocial psychologySociologyMathematicsEpistemologySocial scienceGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Division of labor in wedding planning varies for first-time marriages, with three types of couples—traditional, transitional, and egalitarian—identified, but nothing is known about wedding planning for remarrying individuals. Using semistructured interviews, the author interviewed 14 couples in which at least one person had remarried and used directed content analysis to investigate the extent to which the aforementioned typology could be transferred to this different context. In this paper she describes how a triangulation of analytic techniques provided validation for couple classifications and also helped with moving beyond “blind spots” in data analysis. Analytic approaches were the constant comparative technique, rank order comparison, and visual representation of coding, using MAXQDA 2007's tool called TextPortraits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.818
GPT teacher head0.752
Teacher spread0.066 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it