MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151408786 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1768

Learning the Concept of Researcher as Instrument in Qualitative Research

2015· article· en· W2151408786 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 Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchExperiential learningInterpretation (philosophy)PsychologyProcess (computing)EpistemologyData collectionQualitative analysisMathematics educationManagement scienceSociologyComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors describe the process whereby a student with a background in economics was guided to understand the central role in qualitative research of the researcher as instrument. The instructor designed a three-part mock research project designed to provide experiential knowledge of the enterprise of qualitative research. Students, as neophyte qualitative researchers, were guided to develop a sophisticated understanding of the necessity for congruence between the ontological and epistemological philosophical underpinnings of the research question, data collection techniques, and analysis. An example of the trail of analytic decisions one student made during analysis is included to show the complexity of qualitative analysis and interpretation.

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)0.377
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3770.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.013
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.818
GPT teacher head0.753
Teacher spread0.065 · 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