MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225765460 · doi:10.1177/16094069221086733

The “Recreated Experiences” Approach: Exploring the Experiences of Persons Previously Excluded in Research

2022· article· en· W4225765460 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha Noyek, T. Claire Davies, Beata Batorowicz, Elizabeth Delarosa, Nora Fayed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDyadReflexivityExperiential learningCognitionCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with profound motor, communication, and/or cognitive impairments may face difficulties describing subjective or experiential information through (i) speech, (ii) writing using a pencil and paper, and (iii) typing using a standard computer keyboard. Although patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures can capture information about this group through proxy-report, we cannot solely rely on the responses of a single proxy for experiential information. Research methods to understand the experiences of individuals with profound motor, communication and cognitive impairments are not well defined in the literature. Purpose: To provide guidance to disability researchers on how to explore the subjective and personal experiences, of individuals with profound, motor, communication, and/or cognitive impairments. Three axes are proposed as important to the structure of the “recreated experiences” method: (i) informants, (ii) data collection methods, and (iii) analyses and reflexivity. Different types of information can be gained by involving different informant groups in research about the central person’s experience. Primary guardians can provide information about interpreting central persons’ indicators of expression and broad assessments of their personal life. Other adults can provide insight relative to the central person’s capacities outside of the primary guardian-central person dyad. Peers can provide insight about personal characteristics (i.e., personality traits). Utilizing different data collection methods can foster manifest and latent content to emerge. Analyses and reflexivity which involve diverse perspectives are essential to ensure findings are grounded in lived experience and professional lenses. The method highlights the importance of furthering research to understand the experiences of individuals who cannot traditionally self-express, which may influence possibilities for enhancing care, participation opportunities, and overall well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.029
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.909
GPT teacher head0.738
Teacher spread0.171 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207