MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269833824 · doi:10.1177/1077800415617205

Lives & Legacies

2015· article· en· W2269833824 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchInterviewGlobeSociologyQualitative propertyPedagogyMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade, academic institutions around the globe have archived qualitative data. While scholars have deliberately used them for research purposes, insufficient attention has been directed to their utility for the teaching of qualitative research (QR). In this article, I will discuss how I have used 39 interview transcripts of new immigrants to Canada to develop Lives & Legacies, an online digital courseware available free of charge through Open Access to advance the teaching and learning of qualitative interviewing (QI) for students and other novice researchers. After discussing challenges in teaching QI, I identify four pedagogical principles I have used and draw examples from the courseware to demonstrate their applications. I also discuss the transgressive potentials of using Open Access and a digital format for the courseware. I conclude this article by discussing the future prospects of using archival qualitative data in the teaching/learning of QR.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.445
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.089 · 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