Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glaser, B. (2014). Choosing Classic Grounded Theory: A Grounded Theory Reader of Expert Advice. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. How to select a research methodology? What is the difference between CGT and QDA? Does grounded theory work with case studies? Is grounded theory the right selection for a PhD dissertation? These questions and many more are the focus of Dr. Glaser’s new book, which addresses the key issues faced by the novice researcher in selecting classic grounded theory as their research methodology. In this 439 page fifteen-chapter book, Dr. Glaser takes the research reader on a journey reviewing the history, issues, and factors to consider in selecting classic grounded theory and challenges and myths around what is and is not grounded theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".