Active Interview Tactics in Research on Public Deviants: Exploring the Two-Cop Personas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to establish and maintain good rapport with interviewees is a methodological axiom supported by most social scientists. Some say we place unnecessary limits on data collection, however, when respondents' statements are simply accommodated. More innovative approaches are especially needed to account for varying roles and their narratives, as Goffman would have it, at different frontstage and backstage levels. Sociological focus on tolerable deviance—with emphasis on public deviance by those who promote wider tolerance through situated claims making—presents a research challenge of this nature. The interviews in this article with tattoo artists and drug reform advocates combine attention to rapport with more confrontational tactics, aiming to elicit from informants an array of interpretive standpoints. The authors term this technique “good cop, bad cop.”
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".