MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548904425 · doi:10.1177/160940690800700304

Reconciling Voices in Writing an Autoethnographic Thesis

2008· article· en· W1548904425 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Johnston, Tom Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoethnographyPolyphonyNegotiationSociologyPersonal narrativeAcademic writingProcess (computing)NarrativePedagogyPsychologyLinguisticsGender studiesComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors consider writing and supervising an autoethnographic thesis as a process of reconciling voices while finding one's own academic and personal voice. They draw from notions of polyphony to speak about how we negotiated with different voices (the voices of experts, research participants, personal affiliations, those used in our supervisory discussions) our way forward in the supervisory relationship, as well as in the thesis itself. They invite readers to draw their own meanings from these negotiations as they can relate to supervisory relationships and the writing of academic theses.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.706
Teacher spread0.002 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207