Qualitative Research in the<i>CJA/RCV:</i>An 18-Year Analysis (1995–2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Des chercheurs ont suggérés que la recherche qualitative augmente dans le domaine de la gérontologie, mais peu d'analyses systématiques ont testés cette assertion. En utilisantLa Revue canadienne du vieillissement/Canadian Journal on Agingcomme étude de cas, des articles représentant des projets de recherche originaux de 1995 à 2012 ont été analysés. Un sur quatre articles représentait des recherches qualitatives, et les résultats en intervals de trois ans ont montrés une augmentation évidente des résultats venants des études qualitatives durant cette période de 18 ans: (a) 1995–1997: 10%; (b) 199 –2000: 19%; (c) 200 –2003: 25%; (d) 2004–2006: 25%; (e) 2007–2009: 29%; et (f) 2010–2012: 43%. Dans chaque intervalle de temps (à l'exception de 2004–2006), les articles en langue française utilisaient d’avantage de méthodologie qualitative que les articles en anglais. Les articles françaises utilisaient une conception de la recherche qualitative plus souvent que les articles en anglais. Les sujets de recherche, les méthodologies, et la stratégie de recueil des données sont aussi examinés.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".