MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114068244 · doi:10.1177/104973201129119154

Can we Research Suffering?

2001· article· en· W2114068244 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur W. Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricArticulation (sociology)SociologyPsychologyQualitative researchEpistemologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistSocial sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Illness troubles us because it is an occasion of suffering, but research on illness has difficulty conceptualizing suffering--and naturally so because suffering is not a concept but a lived reality that resists articulation. Based on the work of Dorothy Smith, the author argues that the rhetoric of social science inadvertently increases suffering because it attempts to organize local experience within extralocal categories. He concludes with suggestions for changing research practices.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.100
Scholarly communication0.0200.057
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0110.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.931
GPT teacher head0.804
Teacher spread0.126 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations276
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207