MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604745329

Mixed Methods for Higher Education Research: Opportunities and Challenges

2015· article· en· W2604745329 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Erika E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society for the Study of Higher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory researchMultimethodologyPresentation (obstetrics)Higher educationQualitative researchSociologyEducational researchPolitical sciencePedagogySocial scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation examines the opportunities and challenges offered by mixed methods approaches to higher education research. It explores mixed methods research (MMR) as a methodology through a case example of a recent research study in Canadian higher education employing an exploratory MMR design with qualitative and quantitative approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.631
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.584
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6310.584
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.016
Science and technology studies0.0120.028
Scholarly communication0.0280.022
Open science0.0090.024
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.821
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.203 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society for the Study of Higher EducationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207