MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Qualitative research in transfusion medicine

2011· review· en· W2002704345 on OpenAlexaff
E. Arnold, Shannon Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfusion medicineQualitative researchMedicineBlood transfusionEngineering ethicsManagement scienceSociologySocial scienceSurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transfusion medicine research has traditionally employed quantitative methods to answer clinical research questions. Increasingly, qualitative research methods are being used in the field to address a wide variety of research questions in areas such as blood donation, transfusion practices and policy development. This article describes the key characteristics, methodologies and methods of qualitative research and draws on examples to show how qualitative research approaches have been applied in the field of transfusion medicine. It is hoped that this overview will inform and encourage the application of qualitative research in the field of transfusion medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.378
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion MedicineSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207