La importancia de las relaciones investigador-investigado: el caso de las narrativas de vida profesional.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo aborda un tema fundamental en los estudios llevados a cabo desde una perspectiva construccionista y narrativa: el de la relación entre investigadores e investigados. Nuestra aportación se basa en la elaboración de nueve microetnografías, en las que hemos tenido en cuenta de forma especial la dimensión biográfica, con nueve docentes de enseñanza primaria, lo que nos ha permitido: a) poner de manifiesto la importancia de explicitar la relación entre investigadores e investigados; b) examinar las fortalezas y las debilidades de cada tipo y modalidad de relación; c) apuntar la complejidad y el dinamismo de los elementos que configuran las relaciones; d) abrir vía de indagación que puede contribuir a profundizar en los aspectos relacionales que subyacen a la construcción social del conocimiento.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".