MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224940274 · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmac039

Diary-interview studies: longitudinal, flexible qualitative research design

2022· article· en· W4224940274 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Thille, Louise Chartrand, Cara L. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchMedicineRelation (database)Primary careMedical educationApplied psychologyFamily medicinePsychologyComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lay Summary Diary-interview studies are a longitudinal qualitative approach that allows both participants and researchers to explore participants’ experiences and sense-making in relation to life situations. The purpose of this Methods Brief is to introduce readers to the diary-interview method and highlight methodological decisions researchers need to make when using this type of qualitative approach to generating data. We will introduce each of these decisions in turn, then detail the methodological options. To further exemplify, we describe our 2020–2021 diary-interview study of Canadian primary care clinicians navigating the first year of the pandemic.

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)0.322
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3220.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.920
GPT teacher head0.747
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily PracticeSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207