MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245799067 · doi:10.1055/s-0032-1329884

A Grounded Theory Primer for Audiology

2012· article· en· W4245799067 on OpenAlexaff
Stella Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Hearing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)AudiologyGrounded theoryPsychologyMedicineSociologyPhysicsQualitative researchAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correction to: A Grounded Theory Primer for Audiology Semin Hear 2012; 33(02): 135-146 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1311674 The publisher would like to make note of the permission used for Table 1 in the above article in Seminars in Hearing , Volume 33, Number 2, 2012. p. 138 . The permission notation is indicated on the following page. Table 1 Philosophical and Theoretical Perspectives and Their Implications for Research 43 Worldview Element Postpositivism Constructivism Critical Pragmatism Ontology—nature of reality One reality that we can strive to measure Multiple perspectives, individual realities, that we can strive to represent Political and social reality Reality may be objective but truth is contestable Singular and multiple realities, depending on topic Epistemology—the theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective and thereby the methodology (Crotty, 42 p. 3), the relationship between the researcher and that being researched (Plano Clark, 43 p. 24) Knowledge can be objectively found, from the data, through impartial methods Researchers and participants are an active part of the creation of knowledge Knowledge created collaboratively involving participants; knowledge affected by power relations and in need of continued revision, reconsideration, questioning Collect data depending on “what works” to address a particular research question Axiology—role of values Unbiased Biased Biased Negotiated Multiple stances Methodology—the strategy, plan of action, process, or design behind the choice and use of particular methods, which link the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes (Crotty, 42 p. 3) Deductive, predictive, controlled, explanatory (e.g., experimental design; survey research) Inductive, understanding, meaningful, naturalistic, descriptive (e.g., grounded theory, ethnography, narrative) Participatory, emancipatory, gives voice to the voiceless (e.g., participatory action research) Combining, addresses the question through appropriate means (e.g., mixed methods) Language—how the research is presented at academic meetings and in scholarly journals Formal Informal—literary, analogical In terms of advocacy and change, social, political Formal or informal Methods—the techniques used to gather and analyze data Questionnaires, statistical analyses Interviews, focus groups, naturalistic observation, writing, document review Case studies, focus groups, participant observation, photovoice Both quantitative and qualitative methods Adapted with permission from Creswell and Plano Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd edition; 2010.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.224
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.224
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0170.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.028

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in HearingSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207