MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030585261 · doi:10.1067/mjw.2002.122451

Quantitative and qualitative research: Competition or parallel play?

2002· article· en· W2030585261 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Caelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Computer scienceBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.733
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.776
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7330.776
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0270.134
Scholarly communication0.0520.073
Open science0.0140.051
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.003

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 head0.549
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.066 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence NursingSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207