MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095068664 · doi:10.1136/bmj.a288

An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research

2008· article· en· W2095068664 on OpenAlexaff
Ayelet Kuper, Scott Reeves, Wendy Levinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchReading (process)Management scienceQualitative analysisEpistemologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologySocial scienceLinguisticsEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the difference between qualitative and quantitative research and the need for doctors to be able to interpret and appraise 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.

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)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.214
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.214
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations523
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207