MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524300544 · doi:10.1177/1558689816668689

Analysis of Novel Care Management Programs in Primary Care: An Example of Mixed Methods in Health Services Research

2016· article· en· W2524300544 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

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMultimethodologyNormalization (sociology)Computer scienceManagement scienceQualitative researchHealth careQualitative propertyQualitative comparative analysisData scienceSociologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While health services researchers are using mixed methods research in large-scale studies with “big data” and incorporating data transformation for merging qualitative and quantitative data sets, these developments are not widely known to the broader mixed methods research community. Our purpose in this article is to introduce health services research to the broader mixed methods audience, to examine the potential for novel innovations in mixed methods research procedures, and to illustrate these points through a project on care management that used a convergent mixed methods design. In addition to traditional analytical procedures, we illustrate two qualitative to quantitative data transformation procedures, one using normalization process theory and a second, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis.

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)0.211
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.019
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.541
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.124 · 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