MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265348044 · doi:10.1108/qrom-07-2015-1304

Reflections on the socio-politics of qualitative research

2015· article· en· W2265348044 on OpenAlexaff
Albert J. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research in Organizations and Management An International Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsOriginalityQualitative researchGrounded theorySociologyValue (mathematics)Identification (biology)EpistemologySpace (punctuation)Focus (optics)Social scienceKnowledge productionEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – A focus on the socio-politics of qualitative research and, given the space available, to raise more questions than answers. In other words, the author wants to be more speculative then definitive. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is grounded in a sociology of knowledge approach known as ANTi-History. Findings – The development of qualitative methods is grounded in the socio-politics of knowledge production. Research limitations/implications – The focus chosen – ANTi-History – is selected in exclusion to other potential approaches. Practical implications – To encourage researchers to include socio-politics in understanding the production of qualitative research methods. Social implications – Identification of the socio-politics that underlie qualitative approaches. Originality/value – The paper is rooted in a developing approach to the socio-politics of knowledge of the past.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.106 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research in Organizations and Management An International JournalSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207