MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023318151 · doi:10.1177/08861090122094190

Journeying the Quagmire: Exploring the Discourses That Shape the Qualitative Research Process

2001· article· en· W2023318151 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

VenueAffilia · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchLegitimacyInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologySociologyProcess (computing)Engineering ethicsSocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPoliticsPhilosophyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the struggles to have its legitimacy recognized, qualitative research has been framed as a singular entity understood in relation to quantitative research. This interpretation is now being challenged, resulting in the emergence of increasingly complex, frequently contradictory, and often unarticulated understandings of the goals and practices associated with qualitative research. This article chronicles the pragmatic and ethical struggles the author encountered as her own ideas, reflecting the developing status of qualitative research perspectives, gradually shifted during the process of conducting a doctoral study. The purpose is to open for discussion the implications associated with contradictory discourses around qualitative 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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.820
GPT teacher head0.703
Teacher spread0.117 · 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