MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2222600326 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2455

Anonymity as a Double-Edge Sword: Reflecting on the Implications of Online Qualitative Research in Studying Sensitive Topics

2016· article· en· W2222600326 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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchAnonymityPsychologyData collectionSWORDParticipant observationQualitative propertyNarrativeSocial psychologyInternet privacyApplied psychologySociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSocial scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I reflect on the potentials of using online qualitative data collection methods to elicit narratives from adolescent participants who have experienced victimization within their friendships. Specifically, this article examines the impact of anonymity on participants’ self-disclosure, while also considering the potential limitations of online qualitative research, namely, building rapport amongst participants and the researcher, participant authenticity, and participant safety. It is the hope that other novice researchers will benefit from these methodological and ethical reflections of using online qualitative data collection methods for research on sensitive topics.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.763
GPT teacher head0.716
Teacher spread0.047 · 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