MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399244461 · doi:10.1177/15586898241257555

Toward a Framework for Appraising the Quality of Integration in Mixed Methods Research

2024· article· en· W4399244461 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

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimethodologyQuality (philosophy)Management scienceSociologyComputer scienceSocial scienceEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although integration is a crucial element of mixed methods research (MMR), most MMR quality frameworks have not comprehensively addressed integration in their criteria. These frameworks tend to focus on whether integration is present, without considering important aspects such as the rigor of the integration processes used or their consistency with the other components of the MMR study. This paper presents the Mixed Methods Integration Quality Framework (MMIQF), which was developed based on a methodological review of the literature on integration in MMR. The proposed framework is intended to be useful to authors and readers of MMR studies who wish to ensure and appraise the appropriate implementation of integration in the design, conduct, and reporting of MMR studies.

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)0.544
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.281
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5440.281
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
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 head0.963
GPT teacher head0.878
Teacher spread0.085 · 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