MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099973101 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1609

The Use of Hermeneutics in a Mixed Methods Design

2015· article· en· W2099973101 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanadian Association of Occupational Therapists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHermeneuticsWorkforceSociologyWork (physics)Relation (database)EpistemologyAcculturationQualitative researchPsychologyEngineering ethicsSocial sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combining methods in a single study is becoming a more common practice because of the limitations of using only one approach to fully address all aspects of a research question. Hermeneutics in this paper is discussed in relation to a large national study that investigated issues influencing the ability of international graduates to work as occupational therapists in Canada. Using methods that reflect different ontological and epistemological beliefs was necessary to attain a comprehensive view of enablers and barriers that influence workforce integration. Hermeneutics proved to be a credible and flexible strategy for combining methods to create a deep understanding of acculturation issues for international occupational therapy graduates wishing to work in Canada.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.861
GPT teacher head0.745
Teacher spread0.116 · 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