MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139791201 · doi:10.1177/160940690300200304

A Pathway for Interpretive Phenomenology

2003· article· en· W2139791201 on OpenAlexaff
Sherrill Conroy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenology (philosophy)EpistemologyQualitative researchFrame (networking)Interpretative phenomenological analysisHermeneutic phenomenologySociologyEngineering ethicsPhilosophyPsychologyLived experienceComputer scienceEngineeringSocial sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a qualitative method for research is offered that clearly incorporates Heideggerian philosophy into an interpretive phenomenological research design. Several unique contributions to interpretive research are provided. Tested Hermeneutical Principles for Research (HPR) are outlined. These frame the design and method, and practically integrate the underlying philosophy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.064
Scholarly communication0.0260.032
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations177
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207