MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156899935 · doi:10.1177/070674370505000206

Qualitative Research in Psychiatry

2005· review· en· W2156899935 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourQualitative researchPresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyResearch designEngineering ethicsSociologyEpistemologyMedicineSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is an overview of qualitative research and its application to psychiatry. It is introductory and attempts to describe both the aims of qualitative research and its underlying philosophical basis. We describe the practice and process of qualitative research and follow this with an overview of the 3 main methods of inquiry: interviews, focus groups, and participant observation. Throughout the paper, we offer examples of cases where qualitative research has illuminated, or has the potential to illuminate, important questions in psychiatric research. We describe methods of sampling and follow with an overview of qualitative analysis, appropriate checks on rigour, and the presentation of qualitative results. The paper concludes by arguing that qualitative methods may be an increasingly appropriate methodology to answer some of the demanding research questions being posed in 21st century psychiatry.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.144 · 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