MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412608929

Validity in hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry: towards an ethics of evaluation.

2007· article· en· W2412608929 on OpenAlexaff
Judy Rashotte, Louise Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyInterpretative phenomenological analysisHermeneuticsSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Hermeneutic phenomenologyPhenomenology (philosophy)PsychologyQualitative researchSociologyLived experienceSocial sciencePhilosophyPsychotherapistComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship of ethics to validity in hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry. First, the authors present a brief overview of the various discourses on validity in qualitative research that have been variously applied to hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry. Next, they examine how relational ethics is a presence to bear within this form of inquiry. Finally, they offer a set of ethical reflections to help the researcher engage in a process of ethical questioning during each step of the research process.

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 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)0.144
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1440.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.724
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207