What Evidence?: Qualitative Publishing in the Canadian Journal for Dietetic Practice and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Qualitative research involves the analysis of data in various forms (i.e., written text such as interview transcripts, literature, or a personal diary; visual media such as photographs, maps, or memes; and audio materials such as podcasts, music, or voice notes) to describe and/or interpret phenomena and humans’ perceptions and experiences of the world, including of food, health, and well-being. Dietetic-scholars have raised concerns about the dearth and quality of qualitative dietetic research. Objective: To document the availability and quality of qualitative research published in Canadian dietetic literature. Methods: A manifest content analysis of articles published in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Research and Practice (CJDRP) between 2012 and 2021. Results: In total, 340 articles were published between 2012 and 2021 of which 43 (12.6%) used qualitative methods. Overall, the quality of qualitative articles was poor; articles frequently failed to report the methodological approach or a theoretical framework. Methods of data collection, data analysis, and strategies to ensure rigor were seldom described in detail. Reported limitations were often inappropriate for qualitative research. Discussion: Qualitative research is markedly underrepresented in the CJDPR. Efforts are needed to ensure that high-quality qualitative research evidence and publishing opportunities are available to Canadian dietetic practitioners and researchers. This study provides baseline data to evaluate the impact of future efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.168 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".