QRMine: A python package for triangulation in Grounded Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded theory (GT) is a qualitative research method for building theory grounded in data. GT uses textual and numeric data and follows various stages of coding or tagging data for sense-making, such as open coding and selective coding. Machine Learning (ML) techniques, including natural language processing (NLP), can assist the researchers in the coding process. Triangulation is the process of combining various types of data. ML can facilitate deriving insights from numerical data for corroborating findings from the textual interview transcripts. We present an open-source python package (QRMine) that encapsulates various ML and NLP libraries to support coding and triangulation in GT. QRMine enables researchers to use these methods on their data with minimal effort. Researchers can install QRMine from the python package index (PyPI) and can contribute to its development. We believe that the concept of computational triangulation will make GT relevant in the realm of big data.
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 | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.033 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".