‘Emergent reconstruction’ in grounded theory: learning from team-based interview research
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methods render an interpretive portrayal, a construction of reality, strengthened when the process of construction is acknowledged. An Irish team study uses CGT to explore intergenerational solidarity at individual, familial and societal levels, and their interface. The study data comprise interviews with 100 people from diverse socio-economic and age groups. The article contributes insights on applying CGT in team-based interview research on a topic with such breadth of scope. This contrasts with the more usual focused inquiry with a defined population. Adapting the method’s guidelines to the specific inquiry involved challenges in: framing the topic conceptually; situating research participants in contrasting social contexts to provide interpretive depth; and generating interview data with which to construct theory. We argue that interrogating the very premise of the inquiry allowed for emergent reconstruction, a goal at the heart of the method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.271 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 it