MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883975331 · doi:10.1177/1049732318786703

A Guide to Multisite Qualitative Analysis

2018· article· en· W2883975331 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsQualitative researchPsychologyQualitative analysisSociologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of multisite qualitative research, originally developed within the case study tradition, are to produce findings that are reflective of context, while also holding broader applicability across settings. Such knowledge is ideal for informing health and social interventions by overcoming the limitations of research developed through methodological approaches that either "strip" context, or that hold relevance for a site-specific group or population. Yet, despite the potential benefits of multisite qualitative research, there is a paucity of analytical guidance to support researchers in achieving these yields. In this article, we present an analytical approach for conducting multisite qualitative analysis (MSQA) across various methodologies to maximize the potential of qualitative research, enhance rigor, and support the development of interventions that are tailored to the populations that they are intended to serve.

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)0.195
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1950.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.015

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 head0.890
GPT teacher head0.837
Teacher spread0.053 · 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