CONSIDERING THE METHODOLOGICAL COMPLEXITIES OF THE INTERVIEW APPROACH WHEN EXPLORING THE WORK OF MOTHERING AND DISABILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of disabled or ill mothers is a topic of interest that has been explored in a number of ways and within various research areas, including sociology, education, women/feminist studies, critical disability studies, and science-related fields (e.g., Davidson & Letherby, 2010; Dossa, 2009; Lewiecki-Wilson & Cellio, 2010; Malacrida, 2009; Vannatta, Grollman, Noll, & Gerhardt, 2008). Despite the common themes of mothering and disability, studies in this area can differ in their methodological approach. Drawing on the methodological inquiries and discussions of researchers such as, Devault (1990), Fontana and Frey (2005), Lincoln (1993), and Roulston, deMarrais, and Lewis (2003), I investigate how and why the interview approach operates well as a method of data collection when exploring the work of mothering and disability through a socio-feminist perspective. During this investigation, I briefly identify the analytical and theoretical issues associated with this topic, and how the interview can mitigate these limitations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.107 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".