MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantos participantes são necessários para um estudo qualitativo? Linhas práticas de orientação

2019· article· pt· W2919774279 on OpenAlexaff
Arménio Rego, Miguel Piña e Cunha, Victor Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de gestão dos países de língua portuguesa · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHumanitiesPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uma das dificuldades associadas à realização de investigação qualitativa remete para a dimensão das amostras. Com alguma frequência, os investigadores não justificam a sua escolha de N e são por isso criticados. Este artigo apresenta linhas de orientação para a determinação e justificação do número de casos a usar numa investigação qualitativa. Defende que (a) o aumento da dimensão da amostra não é, em si, uma vantagem, e (b) a quantidade desejável de casos da amostra depende da pergunta de investigação e da declinação da mesma numa série de linhas orientadoras.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.288 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de gestão dos países de língua portuguesaSame topicBusiness and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207