MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155913158 · doi:10.1177/160940690300200302

Toward Holism: The Significance of Methodological Pluralism

2003· article· en· W2155913158 on OpenAlexaff
Janice M. Morse, Seung Eun Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolismPerspective (graphical)Pluralism (philosophy)Management scienceEpistemologyEngineering ethicsQualitative researchData scienceComputer sciencePsychologySociologySocial scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we make a case for achieving comprehensive understanding by using multiple methods in a research program. We argue that used alone, qualitative methods are not holistic, but actively provide segmented perspective on a research problem. We illustrate this concern using three types of data. The limitations of individual methods used alone can be systematically overcome with investigators increasing methodology skill and developing research program.

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)0.348
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.262
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3480.262
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.161
Scholarly communication0.0260.034
Open science0.0050.030
Research integrity0.0070.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.945
GPT teacher head0.767
Teacher spread0.177 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations94
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207