Triangulating qualitative research and computer transaction logs in health information studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to outline a triangulated methodology for studying usage of electronic health information systems which combines the quantitative data accrued from computer logs with qualitative data from in‐depth interviews and observation. Design/methodology/approach The appropriate methods and inherent issues are reviewed from the literature, with an emphasis on qualitative research. The work of the authors is then highlighted, showing how qualitative methods can inform log analysis. Findings The paper suggests from the review that it is not only possible but also extremely fruitful to combine quantitative and qualitative data to interpret user behaviour. Originality/value The methods used by the group, known as “deep log analysis”, are innovative, and the attempt both to discuss these and to provide concrete examples from this research provides its originality.
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 | 0.150 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".