MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159276633 · doi:10.1080/19398440902908993

The problem with truth in qualitative interviews: reflections from a narrative perspective

2009· article· en· W2159276633 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

VenueQualitative Research in Sport and Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)NarrativeQualitative researchEpistemologySociologyPsychologyComputer sciencePhilosophySocial scienceArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the narrative complexity of the telling–listening process that unfolds in qualitative interviews in sport and exercise sciences. Acknowledging the narrative complexity of memory itself, it critiques the perhaps implicit assumption in many researchers’ minds that interviewees’ responses to interviewers’ questions are to be taken as ‘the truth’ in some simple, straightforward manner. By the same token, it concludes by arguing that truth is ultimately no less problematic an issue in quantitative research than it is in qualitative research, merely problematic in a different way.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.448
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.211 · 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