Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative description has generally been viewed as the "poor cousin" to more developed qualitative methods, such as grounded theory. As such, little has been written about rigor in qualitative description, and researchers lack a navigational map to guide them and facilitate decision making. The novice, in particular, can be faced with numerous challenges and uncertainties. Using an incontinence project as a case study, the authors describe the issues that arose within a qualitative descriptive study and approaches used to maintain rigor. The overall credibility of the study depended on the researcher's ability to capture an insider (emic) perspective and to represent that perspective accurately. Strategies to enhance rigor included flexible yet systematic sampling, ensuring participants had the freedom to speak, ensuring accurate transcription and data-driven coding, and on-going attention to context.
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 | 0.734 | 0.844 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".