MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224291780 · doi:10.30564/jmser.v5i1.4538

What are Different Research Approaches? Comprehensive Review of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Research, Their Applications, Types, and Limitations

2022· article· en· W4224291780 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Science & Engineering research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEdcuational Technology Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceManagement scienceData scienceMultimethodologyQualitative researchResearch designPsychologyEngineeringSociologyMathematics educationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are different ways to examine and explain a study and its findings based on using numbers as a measure, a descriptive style, or a mixture of both. These three research approaches are quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods that are commonly used by researchers in various research studies. However, with many options regarding the research design, it seems challenging for researchers to select the most appropriate approach based on the study and realize differences. This study provides a comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research methods. Each method is clearly defined and specifically discussed based on applications, types, advantages, and limitations to help researchers identify select the most relevant type based on each study and navigate accordingly.

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 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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.513
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.019 · 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