MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995069712

How to Design a Qualitative Health Research Study. Part 2: Data Generation and Analysis Considerations.

2020· article· en· W2995069712 on OpenAlexaff
Michela Luciani, Elisabeth Orr, Karen Campbell, Linda Nguyen, Davide Ausili, Susan M. Jack

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesStudioQualitative researchQualitative analysisEngineeringSociologyArtSocial scienceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first part of this article, we introduced methodological issues associated with study design, research questions, contexts, sampling, and recruiting for qualitative health research studies. Here, in this second part of the article, we continue providing health researchers with information on how to design a qualitative health research study and we aim to prepare novice researchers for entering the field. Specifically, by providing considerations for selecting data gathering strategies, differentiation of types of qualitative data and practical tips on how to go into the field. Then, we will briefly discuss data management, analysis and dissemination.

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)0.242
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.346
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2420.346
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.016

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 head0.763
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.247 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207