MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001155351 · doi:10.1055/s-0032-1311674

A Grounded Theory Primer for Audiology

2012· article· en· W2001155351 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

VenueSeminars in Hearing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryQualitative researchConstructivist grounded theoryVariety (cybernetics)EpistemologyField (mathematics)SociologyComputer scienceSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grounded theory is a widely used qualitative research methodology and has been used in a variety of disciplines including anthropology, medicine, nursing, and sociology. Although qualitative research methodologies, including grounded theory, have existed for some time, there is lack of attention to the rigorous use of qualitative methodology in the field of audiology. Today, three major schools of grounded theory are present in the literature. It is important for clinicians and researchers new to grounded theory research to be familiar with the different schools of grounded theory that can be implemented in research including the history and philosophy of each. Such an understanding will enable researchers and clinicians to critically appraise applications of grounded theory methodology and to understand its potential, perhaps for inclusion in their own research programs. This article will provide a brief history of grounded theory, define the three major schools of grounded theory and the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of each, as well as discuss the use of grounded theory in audiology 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.316 · 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