MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098808401 · doi:10.1080/02732173.2015.1064803

The Looking Glass Self and Deliberation Bias in Qualitative Interviews

2015· article· en· W2098808401 on OpenAlex
Brant Downey

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Spectrum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationRespondentPsychologySocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationQualitative researchContext (archaeology)Psychology of selfDimension (graph theory)Relation (database)Process (computing)EpistemologySociologySocial sciencePoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charles Horton Cooley's concept of the “looking glass self” is widely understood as important for revealing how an individual's sense of self is related to the perceived judgments of others. In this article, I find that Cooley's view of the self as an imaginative and social process allows for a deeper understanding of interruptions and silences during qualitative interviews. The underappreciated temporal dimension in his concept is highlighted and applied in this context. To further this end, I introduce the term “deliberation bias” to reveal how looking glass selves and interpersonal norms associated with qualitative interviews play upon the respondent's reflection time. The essay closes with some tentative suggestions for researchers to think about their own role in the interview process in relation to time.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.542
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.041 · 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