Qualitative Data Management and Analysis within a Data Repository
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data repositories can support secure data management for multi-institutional and geographically dispersed research teams. Primarily designed to provide secure access, storage, and sharing of quantitative data, limited focus has been given to the unique considerations of data repositories for qualitative research. We share our experiences of using a data repository in a large qualitative nursing research study. Over a 27-month period, data collected by this 15-member team from 83 participants included photos, audio recordings and transcripts of interviews, and field notes. The data repository supported the secure collection, storage, and management of over 1,800 files with data. However, challenges were introduced during analysis that required negotiations about the structure and processes of the data repository. We discuss strengths and limitations of data repositories, and introduce practical strategies for developing a data management plan for qualitative research, which is supported through a data repository.
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 | 0.259 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".