MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379875007 · doi:10.7202/1100242ar

La confection d’un guide d’entretien pas à pas dans l’enquête qualitative

2023· article· fr· W4379875007 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Karine Rondeau, Pierre Paillé, Emmanuelle Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches qualitatives · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’entretien, une méthode des plus importantes dans les enquêtes en sciences humaines et sociales, exige de la part des personnes chercheuses non seulement de bonnes compétences scientifiques et relationnelles, mais aussi, ce qui est parfois négligé, un bon degré de préparation. Le présent texte entend répondre à cette dernière lacune, d’une part en mettant de l’avant quelques propositions d’ordre épistémologique susceptibles de bien orienter la préparation ainsi que la conduite de l’entretien, et d’autre part en examinant en détail, pas à pas, le travail de confection du guide d’entretien en six étapes.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.008

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 head0.504
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.103 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches qualitativesSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207