MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595172655 · doi:10.1177/160940690600500102

Understanding Emotional Experience in Fieldwork: Responding to Grief in a Northern Aboriginal Village

2006· article· en· W1595172655 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edward J. Hedican

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrospectionEthnographyExperiential learningSubjectivityContext (archaeology)GriefSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyAnthropologyEpistemologyPedagogyPsychotherapistGeographyCognitive psychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author explores the experiential aspects of ethnographic fieldwork, especially in terms of a fieldworker's emotional response to the hardships faced by local people. He presents an ethnographic example concerning fieldwork in a northern Canadian Aboriginal village that evoked an intense emotional reaction from him. He explores this reaction in the context of the epistemological implications of emotional experience in qualitative research and argues that such introspection is a necessary yet understudied component of exploring subjectivity in ethnographic fieldwork.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.759
GPT teacher head0.711
Teacher spread0.048 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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