CONSIDERING THE METHODOLOGICAL COMPLEXITIES OF THE INTERVIEW APPROACH WHEN EXPLORING THE WORK OF MOTHERING AND DISABILITY
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
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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