Spiraling Between Qualitative and Quantitative Data on Women's Health Behaviors: A Double Helix Model for Mixed Methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A double helix spiral model is presented which demonstrates how to combine qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry in an interactive fashion over time. Using findings on women's health behaviors (e.g., menstruation, breast-feeding, coping strategies), we show how qualitative and quantitative methods highlight the theory of knowledge acquisition in women's health decisions. A rich data set of 48 semistructured, in-depth ethnographic interviews with mother-daughter dyads from six ethnic groups (Israeli, European, North African, Former Soviet Union [FSU], American/Canadian, and Ethiopian), plus seven focus groups, provided the qualitative sources for analysis. This data set formed the basis of research questions used in a quantitative telephone survey of 302 Israeli women from the ages of 25 to 42 from four ethnic groups. We employed multiple cycles of data analysis from both data sets to produce a more detailed and multidimensional picture of women's health behavior decisions through a spiraling process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it