MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327837586 · doi:10.1177/1558689815570092

Investigator Triangulation

2015· article· en· W2327837586 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
KeywordsTriangulationComputer scienceDiversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)MultimethodologyPsychologyData scienceManagement scienceSociologyMathematics educationSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to explore investigator triangulation (IT), a collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research (MMR). A critical review of the literature was conducted to identify IT’s core elements and its use in MMR. Five databases, 2 MMR journals, and 13 MMR texts were searched for evidence of IT according to preestablished inclusion criteria. IT descriptions and applications were inconsistent and lacked detailed reporting. Incongruence between IT procedures and associated claims were present. IT was generally limited to single-strand data analysis and was used predominantly to reduce researcher bias. IT’s potential as a generative and pragmatic research strategy used to engage with tensions emerging through diversity in MMR is explored and reporting guidelines are presented.

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)0.150
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.160
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1500.160
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.982
GPT teacher head0.882
Teacher spread0.099 · 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