Automated Coding of Qualitative Interviews with Latent Semantic Analysis.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Coding and analysing qualitative interviews is one of several core techniques used in marketing research. Qualitative methods oer valuable in-formation hardly gained by standard quantitative methods since open-ended questions and interviews provide deeper insight into customer demands. The main disadvantages of qualitative methods are their inherent subjectivity and their high costs. We tackle this problem by applying latent semantic anal-ysis (LSA) in a fully automated way on transcripts of interviews and we propose two algorithms based on LSA. We evaluate the algorithms against two separate real-life cases taken from the automobile industry and from the Austrian mobile phone market. Thereby, we compare the machine results against marketing expert judgements and show that the algorithms proposed provide perfect reliability with appropriate validity in automated coding and textual analysis. 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it