MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114373468 · doi:10.1177/0891241607309654

Generalizing from Workplace Ethnographies

2008· article· en· W2114373468 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Edwards, Jacques Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Ethnography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyComplementarity (molecular biology)SociologySet (abstract data type)EpistemologyComputer scienceAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two modes of generalizing from the large set of workplace ethnographies now in existence are compared. These are the results of the Workplace Ethnography (WE) data set and holistic modeling (HM) based on a more theoretically driven project. In the treatment of specific cases, there is impressive complementarity between the two. But the WE data fail to capture some key features of leading studies, because they do not treat cases holistically. They might also be developed by including studies not included to date. A more explicit theoretical approach offers some firmer grounds for generalizing, and new directions for comparative ethnographies arise.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0200.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary EthnographySame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207