MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093491439 · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.126

The role of qualitative research in psychological journals.

2002· article· en· W2093491439 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

VenuePsychological Methods · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOQualitative researchQualitative analysisPsychologyContent analysisApplied psychologySocial psychologyMEDLINESocial scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acceptance of qualitative research in 15 journals published and distributed by the American Psychological Association (APA) was investigated. This investigation included a PsycINFO search using the keyword qualitative, an analysis of 15 APA journals for frequency of qualitative publication, a content analysis of the journal descriptions, and the results of qualitative interviews with 10 of the chief editors of those journals. The results indicate that there exists a substantial amount of interest in the potential contribution of qualitative methods in major psychological journals, although this interest is not ubiquitous, well defined, or communicated. These findings highlight the need for APA to state its position regarding the applicability of qualitative methods in the study of psychology.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.938
GPT teacher head0.832
Teacher spread0.105 · 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