MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903330119 · doi:10.11575/prism/45614

More than Just Great Quotes: An Introduction to the Canadian Tri-Council’s Qualitative Requirements

2013· other· en· W6903330119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchDiversity (politics)Statement (logic)Work (physics)Qualitative analysisResearch methodologyEthical issues

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although at times misunderstood by the general research community, qualitative research has developed out of diverse, rich and complex philosophical traditions and theoretical paradigms. In the most recent Canadian Tri-Council policy statement on the ethical conduct of research involving humans, a chapter was devoted to a summary of methods and methodological requirements that characterize robust qualitative research, despite the diversity of approaches. To dispel common misperceptions about qualitative research and introduce the unfamiliar reader to these requirements, the work of a qualitative study on isoniazid preventive therapy for prophylaxis of tuberculosis published in AIDS is critiqued alongside each of the Tri-Council’s nine requirements.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgaryFrench-language works237,207