MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313563060 · doi:10.1177/1536867x221141002

qpair: A command for analyzing paired Q-sorts in Q-methodology

2022· article· en· W4313563060 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

VenueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicQ Methodology Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFactor (programming language)Statistical analysisData miningQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Operations researchStatisticsMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we introduce qpair as a new command written in Stata for the analysis of paired Q-sorts in Q-methodology, which is used for studying subjective issues and is a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques. The quantitative component of Q-methodology employs a by-person factor analysis technique. However, currently there is no systematic approach for analyzing paired Q-sorts or longitudinal data in Q-methodology. We introduce the only statistical command available for the analysis of paired Q-sorts. The qpair command employs the factor extraction and factor rotation techniques in Stata. The command is illustrated using a dataset representing perceptions of 50 information technology professionals on person–organization fit regarding their training and development priorities.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.527
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.006 · 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