MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062495424 · doi:10.1177/1077800414563809

Relational Validity and the “Where” of Inquiry

2015· article· en· W2062495424 on OpenAlexafffund
Eve Tuck, Marcia McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConceptualizationQualitative researchEpistemologySociologyPsychologySocial scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews discussions of place in qualitative research that have appeared in Qualitative Inquiry over the past 20 years to foreground a conceptualization of critical place inquiry. The article describes relational validity and emphasizes possibilities for engaging place more meaningfully in qualitative inquiry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.251
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.283
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2510.283
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0160.181
Scholarly communication0.0210.040
Open science0.0040.022
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.385
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.082 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations167
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207