MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990189621 · doi:10.1007/s40037-019-00550-7

Beyond the default colon: Effective use of quotes in qualitative research

2019· editorial· en· W2990189621 on OpenAlexaff
Lorelei Lingard

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchMedical educationComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyData scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

None

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)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.486
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.486
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.019
Scholarly communication0.0240.016
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0280.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.454 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations215
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical EducationSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207