MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113070906 · doi:10.1177/0193945906292557

Field Notes and Theoretical Memos in Grounded Theory

2007· review· en· W2113070906 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

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationGrounded theoryField (mathematics)Qualitative researchFunction (biology)EpistemologyPsychologySociologyComputer scienceSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article the authors expose some of the mystique surrounding field notes and theoretical memos in a Glaserian grounded theory study. Definitions, types, and content of field notes and theoretical memos are presented. Exemplars from a study of mothers living with serious mental illness are provided to illustrate how these forms of documentation evolved during the course of the study. The authors argue that, although the processes of field noting and memoing may blur as a study progresses, they nevertheless retain their independent functions. The authors contend that without understanding the complementary function of these two types of documentation, data cannot evolve to a higher interpretive level. This article contributes specific ideas for improving the methods used by qualitative nurse researchers.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.652
GPT teacher head0.724
Teacher spread0.072 · 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