MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136598107 · doi:10.1177/1049732302239416

Reconsidering Reflexivity: Introducing the Case for Intellectual Entrepreneurship

2003· article· en· W2136598107 on OpenAlex

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

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityEntrepreneurshipEmpathySociologyContext (archaeology)EpistemologyQualitative researchMAGIC (telescope)PsychologySocial psychologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author reconsiders reflexivity and attempts to examine some unresolved issues by drawing particular attention to the relationship between reflexivity and certain related phenomena/processes: the researcher's a priori knowledge, values, beliefs; empathy within qualitative research; the presence and influence of the researcher's tacit knowledge, and May's "magic" in method. Given the limitations of some reflexive activity identified in this article, the author introduces the case for greater intellectual entrepreneurship within the context of qualitative research. He suggests that excessive emphasis on reflexive activity might inhibit intellectual entrepreneurship. Wherein intellectual entrepreneurship implies a conscious and deliberate attempt on the part of academics to explore the world of ideas boldly; to take more risks in theory development and to move away from being timid researchers.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.586
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.078 · 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