The Ivy Compton-Burnett School of Sociology: family culture and everyday life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ivy Compton-Burnett is a little-known writer whose novels about family life should be essential reading for anyone interested in relations of power in families. This paper takes those novels as a starting point for reflecting on methodological issues that arise when working with data that offer multiple perspectives on one family. I am part way through a PhD that considers negotiation of domestic labour in families with teenage kids. My study is based on confidential, in-depth interviews with four or five members of each family. Reading the transcripts from this study is like reading the novels of Ivy Compton-Burnett: in both, accounts from each family member can be seen as situated in the context of their family culture. The paper outlines a typology for thinking about analysis of data from multiple perspectives, devised by UK sociologists Jane McCarthy, Janet Holland and Val Gillies. I propose an approach to analysis for the current study that draws on the work of Canadian sociologist Dorothy Smith. I argue that considering people’s accounts in the context of their family culture enables us to see people as situated actors, and invites us to consider how relations of power are enacted in their everyday lives.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".