MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903986413 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3895

Organizing the Three Forms of Qualitative Inquiry: A Book Review of Qualitative Inquiry – Thematic, Narrative and Arts-Based Perspectives

2018· review· en· W2903986413 on OpenAlexaff
Umair Majid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchReflexivityNarrativeNarrative inquiryThe artsThematic analysisSociologyPedagogyContent analysisPsychologyEpistemologyVisual artsSocial scienceArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this book review, I examine the structure, form, content, and purpose of Qualitative Inquiry: Thematic, Narrative and Arts-Based Perspectives by Lynn Butler-Kisber. This book aims to augment the teaching and learning of investigators engaging in qualitative inquiry. First, I explicate my positionality and reflexivity to contextualize the approach of this book review. Following this discussion, I analyze the book’s structure and content by comparing the alignment between the background, exemplars, and strategies with the intended purpose of the book. I conclude this book review with a summary of its benefits to novice investigators.

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 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)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.020
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.894
GPT teacher head0.774
Teacher spread0.120 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207