MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030621234 · doi:10.3917/rsi.103.0020

Le devis mixte en sciences infirmières ou quand une question de recherche appelle des stratégies qualitatives et quantitatives

2010· article· fr· W2030621234 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Bourgault, Frances Gallagher, Cécile Michaud, Denise St‐Cyr Tribble

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherche en soins infirmiers · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’utilisation d’un devis mixte soulève de nombreuses interrogations notamment en regard de la position paradigmatique. En s’appuyant sur la vision pragmatique, il est possible de considérer le devis mixte comme étant la meilleure façon de répondre à une question de recherche donnée. Le choix de l’un des différents types de devis mixtes assure l’atteinte du but de l’étude. Afin d’illustrer l’utilisation d’un tel devis, une étude en sciences infirmières sert d’exemple. Les défis soulevés par un tel devis et la place de ce type de recherche en sciences infirmières sont discutés.

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 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)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0070.020
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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.045 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherche en soins infirmiersSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207