Qualitative Health Research in Ibero-America: The Current State of the Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative health research (QHR) comprises a field that has spread and consolidated in Ibero-America (Iberian and Latin American countries) during the 1990s. Until now, however, no systematic evaluation has been made of the qualitative health research published in the region. The aim of this article is to discuss four aspects of QHR: the capability and limitations of using international databases to identify Ibero-American qualitative health studies; the principle health topics studied in Latin America using QHR methodologies; the development of QHR in Spain; and the theoretical perspectives that guide studies in Latin America. A bibliographic search was conducted to identify QHR studies listed in 17 international and/or regional databases. A parallel search was conducted by contacting research centers, academic institutes, and key researchers in several countries.
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.155 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".