Public Selves, Inequality, and Interruptions: The Creation of Meaning in Focus Groups with Teens
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
Focus groups have received substantial attention over the past few decades, particularly as they are considered to provide rich, interactive data, yet only occasionally do researchers discuss the process of conducting focus groups with young people. This paper contributes to wider debates on focus groups through engagement with three interrelated topics, each with unique reflection on focus groups with teenagers: the advantages of focus group interactions, particularly in relation to hierarchies of age and the research relationship, how focus groups shape self-representation and “truth-telling,” and, finally, the challenge of “unruly” data. The author addresses these topics through drawing on several sources of data: 18 focus groups with secondary students on the topic of school rules, exit questionnaires collected from focus group participants, and in-depth interviews with the primary investigator and three research assistants.
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 | 0.044 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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