MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407910619 · doi:10.11647/obp.0418.37

37. Q method

2025· book-chapter· en· W4407910619 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

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicQ Methodology Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Q is a survey-based method in which researchers employ quantitative and qualitative techniques to characterize the different ways of thinking about a topic that exist. It provides a “bottom-up” approach to classifying the social world, as the researcher must induce meaning out of participants’ choices about how to rank order survey statements. To aid in this, Q studies are typically paired with other methods such as interviews. There are several analytical challenges to be aware of in using Q method, including whether it alone can support claims about how prevalent a shared perspective is and whether it provides “unbiased” results.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.005

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.195 · 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