MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851934199 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1724

Critical Ethnography: A Useful Methodology in Conducting Health Research in Different Resource Settings

2015· article· en· W1851934199 on OpenAlexaff
Dunsi Oladele, Solina Richter, Alexander M. Clark, Lory Laing

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobacco controlParticipant observationEthnographyFocus groupUnderpinningSociologyPublic healthWork (physics)Resource (disambiguation)PopulationPublic relationsCritical realism (philosophy of perception)MedicineSocial scienceEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceNursingRealismEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the years, many policies have been implemented across nations to prevent, reduce and tighten enforcement on smoking and tobacco use. However, despite all of the major initiatives, smoking related deaths and diseases still remain high and present a major challenge for many nations of the world. In this paper we argue that conducting a critical ethnography study in different settings, as this research sets out to do (in Nigeria) is a first step to understanding the tobacco control policies that will work effectively in different resource settings. As the act of smoking becomes global, it is beneficial to study the effect of specific methods, methodology and policies in addressing smoking in the population. This paper is one of three on the study of public health challenge of smoking in Nigeria, and explains the method used in collecting and analyzing data. The research was undertaken and analyzed through a critical ethnography lens using critical realism as a philosophical underpinning. In the study we relied upon the following components: original field work in Nigeria which includes participant observation of smokers, in-depth interviews and focus groups with smokers, and in depth interviews with health professionals working in the area of tobacco control in Nigeria.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.440
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.189
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4400.189
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.956
GPT teacher head0.776
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207