MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bridging Distance and Culture With a Cyberspace Method of Qualitative Analysis

2004· article· en· W2324360301 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

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsWind Energy Institute of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspaceBridging (networking)Meaning (existential)Qualitative researchFace (sociological concept)Health careSet (abstract data type)PsychologySociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebThe InternetPolitical scienceComputer securitySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a qualitative research method that weds the cyberspace technology of e-mail with a phenomenological research approach. Examples are provided from 2 separate data sets. One data set explored the meaning of health for Japanese elders; the second explored Chinese nurses' experience of taking care of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Lessons learned while using the cyberspace method are discussed, including guidance for organizing a long-distance research team, the central place of trust, and the time when e-mail communication demands to be supplemented with face-to-face interaction. The potential for bridging distance and culture with this cyberspace method is introduced for consideration and critique.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.491 · 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