MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102241173 · doi:10.1177/1049732303259865

Know When to Hold ’Em, Know When to Fold ’Em: Qualitative Thinking Outside the University

2004· article· en· W2102241173 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Agar

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsDilemmaQualitative researchNeed to knowFace (sociological concept)PsychologyEngineering ethicsMedical educationComputer scienceSociologyMedicineEpistemologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative researchers often face a dilemma. They are asked to apply their knowledge to problems without adequate time or support to conduct projects that meet traditional academic standards of research design and methodology. Should qualitative researchers pitch in and get involved or keep their distance? What can they hope to accomplish, if anything? How do they know whether a particular job can be done? Traditional research training provides few guidelines to answer such questions. In this article, the author explores one way to think about what such guidelines might look like.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.385
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.109 · 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207