MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139969426 · doi:10.1177/1476750308099595

The `f' word has everything to do with it

2009· article· en· W2139969426 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

VenueAction Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningAction (physics)EpistemologySociologyPower (physics)Action researchCritical theoryDynamics (music)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers how feminist theories have and can contribute to action research, while acknowledging some of the tensions that arise when applying and building feminist theories. While feminist theorizing undoubtedly occurs in some action research, whether it is named or not, the gap appears to be in linking local knowledge to existing theoretical frameworks. Feminist theories, even though they are always partial and contested, have acted as an intentional counter to dominant theories about human experiences and strategies for change. They prompt people to ask new questions and to see power dynamics and relationships that may otherwise be missed or misread. As a result, they have an important role to play in any action research with transformative intentions.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.898
GPT teacher head0.756
Teacher spread0.142 · 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