MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409655575 · doi:10.1177/10784535251335056

Choosing an Analytical Approach in Phenomenological Inquiry

2025· editorial· en· W4409655575 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

VenueCreative Nursing · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenology (philosophy)EpistemologyInterpretative phenomenological analysisQualitative researchNarrativePhenomenological methodGrounded theoryPsychologySociologyPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenomenology as a research methodology is based on Edmund Husserl's and Martin Heidegger's philosophy of phenomenology, which addresses the subject of human experience. It is one of the commonly used methodologies in health sciences research. This second editorial in the series titled "Focus on Qualitative Data Analysis" aims to provide researchers with guidance on how to choose appropriate methods of analysis among varied phenomenological approaches. We provide an analytical choice tree that presents our perspective on the methods of analysis in phenomenology. The previous article in this series addressed case study methodology. Future articles will address qualitative description, grounded theory, and narrative inquiry.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.323 · 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