MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468850843 · doi:10.1177/0886109915586828

Complexities of Negotiating Power When Re-Constructing Stories About Lone Mothers

2015· article· en· W2468850843 on OpenAlex
Diana L. Gustafson, Tracy Swan, Brenda Gillingham, Janice E. Parsons

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

VenueAffilia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationParticipatory action researchPower (physics)Inclusion (mineral)Citizen journalismAction (physics)SociologyAction researchPsychologyGender studiesSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePedagogySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building social inclusion was the primary theoretical and practice goal of a group of researcher/academics who partnered with lone mother research assistants in participatory action research. One outcome was the creation of a video recording that was based on a day in the life of a lone mother receiving income support. The work of creating and sharing the video recording became the lightning rod that focused the partners’ attention on the complexities of negotiating power in the well-intentioned but problematic struggle to reconstruct stories about lone mothers. The distinct voices of individual authors are honored in this shared story about our journey.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.656
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.056 · 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