MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017795280 · doi:10.1177/1468794107076021

Nostalgia, goodness and ethical paradox

2007· article· en· W2017795280 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNostalgia and Consumer Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceSociologyAestheticsConstruct (python library)Power (physics)EpistemologyArtPhilosophyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We research in Saskatchewan, in the Dry Land elucidated by Trevor Herriot (2001). We start with his notion that `those of us who live west of the 100th meridian have been using nostalgia to construct a romance fiction out of our history… there is no denying the power of nostalgia' (p. 2). Our landscape shapes us as we in turn shape it, we feel obligated to be sensitive to the glamours of nostalgia. Our prairie landscape evokes questions: What does it mean to research ethically in this space? What are the possible foci of our nostalgia? And, how do we navigate the ethical paradoxes in which we find ourselves? This article argues that research pushed by cultural norms creates double-binds around notions of `good' and `R/right'. By juxtaposing nostalgia and goodness, we examine ethical paradoxes facing us as academics in renegotiating these double-binds.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.292 · 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