MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609724201 · doi:10.3399/bjgp17x690821

Publishing qualitative research in medical journals

2017· article· en· W2609724201 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistQualitative researchPublishingTransparency (behavior)Psychological interventionMedicineMedical educationPromotion (chess)Alternative medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyComputer scienceNursingSocial scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative research makes an important contribution to research in the medical sciences. It has a particular role in providing understanding with respect to decisions and behaviours of patients and professionals, in exploring factors affecting the implementation of new interventions, and in developing theory in fields such as illness behaviour, clinical decision making, illness prevention, and health promotion. Qualitative research articles account for almost a quarter of submissions to the BJGP, with a similar acceptance rate for publication. About a quarter of the 40 most highly cited articles published in the BJGP in recent years employ qualitative methods.

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)0.234
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.478
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2340.478
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.019
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.876
GPT teacher head0.732
Teacher spread0.144 · 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