MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110615824 · doi:10.1177/160940690500400405

Multiple Voices and Methods: Listening to Women Who Are in Workplace Transition

2005· article· en· W2110615824 on OpenAlexaff
B. Balan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningFocus groupTransition (genetics)Participant observationFocus (optics)PsychologyQualitative researchPedagogyChoseMedical educationSocial psychologySociologyCommunicationMedicineSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author illustrates, through one participant's transcripts, the two-part method used in research that sought a deeper understanding of the perceived learning of female professionals during workplace transition. Five women participated in a 1-hour interview and a focus group. To give voice to each participant while also identifying common themes and learning experiences, the author used a two-step research method. The first step entailed individual interviews, which the author analyzed using a voice-centered relational method. The author chose the second step, the focus group, to facilitate women's learning from each other's experience.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207