MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Challenges of Reflexivity

2014· article· en· W231027330 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Flogen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityQualitative researchSociologyEpistemologyGazePsychologySocial sciencePsychoanalysisPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perils, Pitfalls & Reflexivity aims to stimulate solutions to qualitative challenges that researchers encounter in countries with less research infrastructure and experience, and to expose to critical gaze the methodological and ethical assumptions that may be taken for granted in countries where there are more formal research processes. I read this book as a novice qualitative researcher with an active interest in reflexivity who lives in Canada, intrigued to learn from others' fieldwork, keen to encounter another point of view of ethics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.528
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.492
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5280.492
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0160.258
Scholarly communication0.0480.064
Open science0.0110.027
Research integrity0.0180.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.607
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.082 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207