MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150098308 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1492

Toddling Towards Childhood: A Bibliometric Analysis of the First QROM Lustrum (2006 - 2010)

2015· article· en· W2150098308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduardo Infante Rejano

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeSociologyDiversity (politics)Social scienceSample (material)Qualitative researchContent analysisNarrative inquiryPublic relationsPolitical scienceAnthropologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first years in the life of a journal are the most difficult ones as editors need to advertise it effectively and attract worldwide researchers to safeguard its launch and maintenance. This study provides a bibliometric analysis of the first lustrum of the journal Qualitative Research in Organizational and Management (QROM) in an attempt to assess its production both in methodological and conceptual terms. The sample was made up of 66 articles by 109 (co - )authors from 66 institutions. A total of 53.2% of contributors were female and were responsible for 42.4% of the single - authored articles (compare to 34.8% of only - male articles). Eight “invisible schools , ”, 37.5% national ones, were obtained by relating authors to sharing co - authors (grade 1), institutions (grade 2) or cities (grade 3). The most productive authors were Cassell, Grandy, and McKenna, the first two being developers of invisible schools. The number of articles, theoretical perspectives, and diversity of applied techniques has increased in QRO M over the lustrum period with UK and Canada as most prolific countries followed by USA, Sweden, and Australia. Most articles dealt with organizational and managerial issues under discourses or narrative perspectives using interviews and sense - making theories. The evolution of these findings is also presented.

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 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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.144
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.110 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207