MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151828277 · doi:10.1177/1049732303261955

After Methods, the Story: From Incongruity to Truth in Qualitative Research

2004· article· en· W2151828277 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur W. Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingPostmodernismEthnographyQualitative researchAdvice (programming)SociologyPsychologyEpistemologyAestheticsNarrativeSocial scienceLiteratureComputer scienceArtPhilosophyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Writing is the integral part of research when a story is crafted. This story makes whatever claim the research will have on readers, and social scientists have increasingly recognized the need to take their storytelling seriously. Discussion of several contemporary ethnographies offers practical advice on writing by asking how the authors tell such good stories. Advice begins with how to catch readers' attention and moves to issues of telling the truth in postmodern times.

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)0.149
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.227
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1490.227
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.077
Scholarly communication0.0240.030
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0070.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.890
GPT teacher head0.826
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations87
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207