Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this paper were to (a) describe and assess the use of grounded theory methodology (GTM) in sport psychology over the past 11 years and (b) provide some guidance for best practices moving forward. Following a brief summary of the history of GTM, we present the results of a rapid review of seven sport psychology journals from 2009 to 2021. A total of 35 articles that made claims regarding the use of GTM as a methodology were retained. The retained articles were assessed using 11 criteria. Overall, the methodological completeness of GTM studies in sport psychology appears to have improved over the past decade. Twenty-two of the 35 articles met all, or all but one, of the criteria. Thirteen articles did not meet two or more of the criteria. In terms of areas for improvement, the least widely reported procedures were theoretical sampling (reported in 22 of 35 studies), theoretical saturation (22 of 35 studies), and assessment of theory (22 of 35 studies). Furthermore, the sophisticated positioning of theoretical sensitivity was sometimes lacking in the articles. We discuss ways in which researchers can increase the conceptual and theoretical sophistication of methodologically sound GTM studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.000 |
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 it