MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944987661 · doi:10.17169/fqs-20.2.3136

A Graphic and Tactile Data Elicitation Tool for Qualitative Research: The Life Story Board

2018· article· en· W2944987661 on OpenAlexaffabout
Javier Mignone, Robert M. Chase, Kerstin Roger

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Photo elicitationQualitative researchQualitative propertyNarrativeConstruct (python library)Data collectionComputer sciencePsychologyApplied psychologyKnowledge managementSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data collection methods for qualitative research are varied and have a rich history. The Life Story Board (LSB) is a game board-like tool that is used to construct a visual representation of a person's narrative and his/her related context. In our study, we comparatively assessed the LSB as a data elicitation tool for social science research. We reviewed eight Canadian research projects that have used the LSB as data elicitation tool for qualitative research and assessed the LSB on the feasibility of its use, on its effectiveness to elicit information, on aspects that facilitate and/or hinder its use, and how it compares with conventional interview approaches. Our findings suggest that the LSB can be used with study participants of different gender, age, ethnicity, and life circumstances; that it is effective as a data elicitation tool, and that it facilitates engagement with interviewees, without presenting any major hindrances.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0910.060
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0160.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.888
GPT teacher head0.761
Teacher spread0.127 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences)Same topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207