MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142433823 · doi:10.1080/02703149.2011.580668

Working across Boundaries: Exploring the Relations of Researching Gender and Development

2011· article· en· W2142433823 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Campbell, Elena Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Therapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographySociologySocial relationInequalityGender studiesSocial inequalityWork (physics)EpistemologySocial psychologySocial sciencePsychologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors reflect on their own experience of international research collaboration to draw analytic attention to its social organization. Using institutional ethnography (Smith, 1987, 2005) they explicate the social relations of inequality into which they were drawn in spite of their best intentions. This analysis makes visible what was otherwise not recognized or recognizable, suggesting that feminists working across borders must learn how to take seriously the institutional practices in which their work is inevitably embedded. The authors explicate the institutional conditions that organize their actions within and across international sites, having real effects on research relations and outcomes.

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
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 head0.702
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen & TherapySame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207