Ethnographic Inquiry and Comparative Analysis: A Reply to Jörg Niewöhner and Thomas Scheffer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156913210X12555713197259 Comparative Sociology 9 (2010) 537–543 brill.nl/coso C O M P A R A T I V E S O C I O L O G Y Ethnographic Inquiry and Comparative Analysis: A Reply to Jörg Niewöhner and Th omas Scheff er Robert Prus Sociology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 prus@uwaterloo.ca I found the reply that Jörg Niewöhner and Th omas Scheff er provided to my earlier commentary of the collection of papers they edited on thick ethnography and the comparison process to be very helpful in clarifying their concerns
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 | 0.065 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".