MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200165780 · doi:10.11622/smedj.2021199

http://www.smj.org.sg/article/institutional-ethnography-primer

2021· review· en· W4200165780 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yang Yann Foo, Kevin Tan, Xiaoke Xin, Wee Shiong Lim, Qun Cheng, Jandhyala Prabhakara Rao, NCK Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueSingapore Medical Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoLee Foundation
KeywordsRigourTerminologyHealth careContext (archaeology)MedicineQualitative researchEthnographyHealth professionalsEngineering ethicsQuality (philosophy)Management scienceSociologyEpistemologySocial scienceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review introduces a qualitative methodology called institutional ethnography (IE) to healthcare professionals interested in studying complex social healthcare systems. We provide the historical context in which IE was developed, and explain the principles and terminology in IE for the novice researcher. Through the use of worked examples, the reader will be able to appreciate how IE can be used to approach research questions in the healthcare system that other methods would be unable to answer. We show how IE and qualitative research methods maintain quality and rigour in research findings. We hope to demonstrate to healthcare professionals and researchers that healthcare systems can be analysed as social organisations, and IE may be used to identify and understand how higher-level processes and policies affect day-to-day clinical work. This understanding may allow the formulation and implementation of actionable improvements to solve problems on the ground.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSingapore Medical JournalSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207