Evaluations, international agencies and censorship: A field doer’s viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a radically empirical and descriptive account of the most often neglected viewpoint: that of the ‘doer’. Using field autoethnographic examples from remote Northern Brazil, the article portrays the clash between the universalistic programs of international agencies and doer perspective at the fieldwork level. The see-judge-act tool helped to chart the heuristic field of daily life as a reflective practice. Three moments illustrate the confrontation of the action planned: (a) a projection of abstract theoretical assumptions based on a universalistic framework; (b) a silent period of accommodation of local realities to the imposed, descending logic of the formal discourse; and (c) the production of an exportable version of the partially hidden local situation. All three moments show the struggles to make the ‘doer viewpoint’ communicable beyond the local geographic region. In the end, fieldwork dangers were censored and inconsistencies were evened-out.
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 | 0.059 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".