MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325028103 · doi:10.1177/1473325011419053

Using comparative perspective rapid ethnography in international case studies: Strengths and challenges

2011· article· en· W2325028103 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Social Work · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyManagerialismInsiderComparative casePerspective (graphical)Comparative researchNeoliberalism (international relations)SociologyStrengths and weaknessesPolitical sciencePublic relationsSocial sciencePsychologySocial psychologyLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data collected as part of a larger, four country, international comparative study, the challenges and strengths of rapid ethnography (RE) are explored. To deepen and enhance the study, in each case study (nine completed to date) an insider is paired with an outsider researcher in order to draw on a comparative perspective from the researcher team involved in each individual case study, as well as across the four countries and nine studies. The article concludes that because of its strengths and rapid turnaround, RE provides a way for international comparative studies to continue despite sharp decreases in research funding and, in our case, produced important insights for those seeking to understand and derail the seemingly unstoppable impacts of neoliberalism and managerialism in social service delivery.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.720
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.086 · 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