MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W57675870

Evaluating Qualitative Research: Education of the Guard

2006· article· en· W57675870 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Tingling, Louis Beaubien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfessionalPositivismQualitative researchPostmodernismGrounded theoryEthnographyGuard (computer science)SociologyEpistemologyEngineering ethicsManagement scienceComputer scienceSocial sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a well-established tradition within the information systems discipline and wider management investigations, researchers are frequently required to remind if not educate reviewers as to how qualitative research should be evaluated.This paper reviews and discusses criteria that have been proposed for grounded theory, ethnographic, confessional, postmodern, and interpretive and positivist case studies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.579
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.699
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5790.699
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.035
Scholarly communication0.0180.019
Open science0.0050.025
Research integrity0.0070.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207