MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159771425 · doi:10.1080/13645570701622116

Separately Together: Working Reflexively as a Team

2008· article· en· W2159771425 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

VenueInternational Journal of Social Research Methodology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityTeamworkPresentation (obstetrics)Qualitative researchSubject (documents)SociologyResource (disambiguation)PsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discussions of reflexivity tend to ignore issues of practice, and those addressing practice are likely to presume a sole researcher. In this paper, we respond to the need for attention to reflexive practice in qualitative research teams. Drawing on our experience of working ‘separately together’, we identify reflexivity as an embedded feature of team-based research. We discuss how reflexivity can be used as a collective interpretive resource in the construction of the research subject/object, and we highlight reflexive possibilities unique to team-based research. We include in the article a presentation of the orientations and research practices that supported our reflexive teamwork.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.138 · 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