MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114567315 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1726

Foundations of Unlimited

2015· article· en· W2114567315 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

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchPhenomenology (philosophy)Grounded theoryNarrativeEthnographyPedagogySociologyNarrative inquiryEducational researchMathematics educationEpistemologyPsychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.) is an informative, engaging and user-friendly book by J. W. Creswell (2012) that is focused on practical application of qualitative research methods in social inquiry. The author provided a useful comparison of the five types of qualitative inquiry (narrative, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, and case study) and discussed foundational and methodological aspects of the five traditional approaches. Creswell also effectively demonstrated how the type of the approach of qualitative inquiry shaped the design or procedures of a study. This book could be particularly useful to novice researchers and graduate students who are new to qualitative research, as well as to educators teaching qualitative methods of inquiry.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.676
GPT teacher head0.708
Teacher spread0.032 · 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