MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090968308 · doi:10.1177/10778004090150010402

Roots/Routes

2008· article· en· W2090968308 on OpenAlexaff
Dalene M Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyReflexivityArticulation (sociology)Transformative learningNarrativePoliticsTranscendence (philosophy)EpistemologySpiritualityPositivismPraxisPostmodernismAestheticsSocial sciencePedagogyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This narrative acts as an articulation of a journey of many routes. Following Part I of the same research journey of rootedness/routedness, it debates the nature of transformation and transcendence beyond personal and political paradoxes informed by neoliberalism and related repressive globalizing discourses. Through a more personal, descriptive, and philosophical approach, the author seeks to move, in a reflexive manner, beyond the delimiting roots of deficit discourse and its unrootedness with the daily, local, and lived. Through the use of a nontraditional writing—research approach, the author explores other, less objectifying, ways of being in research and attempts to provide alternative pedagogies of possibility away from dichotomous and positivist research engagement. By confronting socially constructed knowledges and identities, and “(re)sourcing” these through “humble togetherness” (Ubuntu), the storying seeks to find a transcendent spirituality through the routes/roots of research and achieve the emergence of transformative possibilities through pedagogies of hope!

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.026
Scholarly communication0.0180.023
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.006

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207