MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533694666 · doi:10.1177/160940691501400105

Imagination as Method

2015· article· en· W1533694666 on OpenAlexaff
Michael T. Hayes, Pauline Sameshima, Francene Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyImaginationAestheticsPlanetSpace (punctuation)SociologyEpistemologyArtAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the article the authors argue for the imagination as a central method in ethnography employed to create a more abundant, just, and connected planet. Imagination is the creative energy that links conscious with the generation of the world of material experience. Through imagination the ethnographer becomes immersed in a space of play in which the world can be imagined as something not yet or in emergence, rather than as it is. Our hope is that by employing imagination in this way, ethnography can be focused to generating new possibilities for life on the planet.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.056
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.875
GPT teacher head0.809
Teacher spread0.067 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207