On the Same Page: A Formal Process for Training Multiple Interviewers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased utilization of qualitative methodologies as part of mixed-method health and social science research has highlighted the need for training procedures for every stage of qualitative data collection and analysis. Yet, few group training models exist for collecting reliable, valid qualitative interview data. This article presents a multi-stage, collaborative interview training process for a large team of research assistants. The training program combines insights and techniques used in both structured and semi-structured interviewing. It also includes ongoing instruction and feedback prior to and during data collection in an effort to ensure consistency and reliability. In the article, I describe each stage of the training program in detail, review some of the challenges encountered during implementation, and conclude with a discussion of how researchers and course instructors might adapt the methods to fit their particular needs.
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 | 0.066 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 0.088 |
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".