MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977675898 · doi:10.5172/mra.455.2.1.2

Methodological congruence in complex and collaborative mixed method studies

2008· article· en· W1977675898 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 Multiple Research Approaches · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCongruence (geometry)PsychologyMultimethodologyTriangulationManagement scienceProject commissioningComputer scienceSocial psychologyPublishingEngineeringMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of methodological congruence has gained more attention due to the need for careful planning of coherence and purpose among parts of research studies. The complexity of the study, the goals of the study, and the research questions that focus the study must all be taken into consideration. Maintaining methodological congruence, therefore, is an important aspect of employing multiple methods and ensuring study validity. In this study we sought to understand the impacts of social context on processes of adaptation, integration, and maintenance of a new program within a health system. This article clarifies the terms used in mixed method and mixed strategy studies and offers a case example of how methodological strategies can be integrated and used to foster triangulation and validity in the data by giving attention to methodological congruence at all stages of research.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.983
GPT teacher head0.794
Teacher spread0.189 · 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