MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410845084 · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2025.100187

Compatibility, integration, and epistemology: Contemporary issues from a mixed methods research experiment

2025· article· en· W4410845084 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsCenter of Excellence in Energy EfficiencyCollège ShawiniganCentre Jeunesse de QuebecUniversité LavalInternational Centre for Comparative CriminologyGrain Research Centre
FundersAlzheimer SocietyMinneapolis Medical Research FoundationEvelyn F. and William L. McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida HealthUniversité Laval
KeywordsCompatibility (geochemistry)EpistemologySociologyPhilosophyEngineeringChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in Mixed Methods Research (MMR) makes it possible to benefit from the different strengths of each method. However, achieving a successful combination is not always easy. This article discusses the use of MMR in a study of clinical intervention, detailing the challenges, some insurmountable, encountered in designing the methodology, integrating the results, and preparing for the work for publication. These challenges are contextualized by reference to the current literature on MMR. The authors conclude by discussing the evolution of MMR and call for further critical reflection on compatibility, theory, and epistemology, and the resources and skills required to use the method effectively.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.541
GPT teacher head0.742
Teacher spread0.201 · 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