MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Focus Groups to Design a Valid Questionnaire

2000· article· en· W2024322414 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J. McLeod, Tim Meagher, Yvonne Steinert, Don Boudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupMedical educationFocus (optics)PsychologyQuestionnaireMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors planned to study the roles and concerns of senior faculty members at their institutions. To elaborate the aims of their study and to help them design a valid questionnaire, they conducted focus groups with senior faculty. The authors describe how the information gleaned from the focus groups helped them develop their questionnaire.

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)0.132
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1320.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207