La investigación llamada “cualitativa”: de la dinámica de su evolución a los logros innegables y cuestionamientos presentes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este documento articula una reflexión sobre los logros de la investigación denominada "cualitativa" y que no son independientes del contexto general que ha orientado el desarrollo de las Ciencias sociales y humanas. En particular, apunta a mostrar que los enfoques cualitativos han consolidado su dimensión epistemológica y su legitimidad científica. Las elecciones metodológicas de recolección de datos y los modos de interpretación y de análisis se han también estabilizado dando a la comunidad científica sólidos puntos de referencia. Este balance nos lleva a reflexionar sobre sus logros porque los enfoques cualitativos, preocupados por comprender una pluralidad de formas de expresión humana (artes, danza, literatura y otras formas estéticas), sufren actualmente de un estallido en las formas de hacer la investigación y de legitimar el conocimiento producido.
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 | 0.025 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".