MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401955217 · doi:10.29333/ajqr/14888

Review of Grounded Theory for Mental Health Service and Migrant Health Research

2024· article· en· W4401955217 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Qualitative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryMental healthMental health servicePsychologySociologyApplied psychologyQualitative researchPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<i>In recent years, numerous published calls to action from nurses and nursing scholars requested greater involvement and response to the health needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Youth refugees and asylum seekers have been particularly vulnerable to mental health difficulties and have experienced major barriers to mental health access. Grounded theory may be suitable to expand our understanding of this field, which could assist decision-makers, managers, healthcare providers, and researchers in developing policies and programs to address this wicked problem. This paper, therefore, reviews and examines grounded theory’s core components, history, types, ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods, strengths, limitations, utility to nursing inquiry, and potential in supporting mental health service research for youth refugees and asylum seekers. </i>

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)0.284
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2840.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.744
GPT teacher head0.770
Teacher spread0.027 · 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