MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366825750 · doi:10.1177/26349825231163140

Problems with quantitative categorization: An argument for qualitative approaches

2023· article· en· W4366825750 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

VenueEnvironment and Planning F · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationPositivismEpistemologyArgument (complex analysis)Data scienceQualitative researchQualitative propertyComputer scienceSociologyManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial scienceMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As data science gains traction, it often brings quantitative approaches and positivist epistemologies. While these can generate powerful insights, we argue for methodological hybridity in modern data science. We demonstrate the power of complementary qualitative approaches and flexible ontologies. Using an example of classifying segments™ on Strava, neither quantitative nor qualitative approaches alone were adequate to meaningfully classify segments, but together allowed accurate, useful, and intuitive categories to emerge. Drawing on this experience, we discuss qualitative data science and argue the ontological discussions within Critical GIS from the 1990s and 2000s are increasingly relevant and informative amidst our platial paradigms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.161 · 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