Practical Issues in Using a Card Sort in a Study of Nonsupport and Family Caregiving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors successfully used the card sort data collection technique with 17 female family caregivers in a large ethnographic study of non-support. In this article, they describe the practical issues they addressed. Initially, they developed strategies to construct meaningful statements that reflected key themes and were manageable in an interview. Later, to address challenges for participants, they developed approaches to assist women in moving beyond their own experience, dealing with test anxiety, and anticipating an emotional response. To facilitate effective data collection, they made detailed arrangements in advance, collected "talk aloud" data that captured women's decisions, and maintained accurate records. The women felt validated in their caregiving roles, as the card statements reflected their experience and rich data was elicited. The card sort exercise contributed information about variability in the meaning of similar interactions for different women and a beginning understanding of the criteria women used to make decisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.397 | 0.421 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".