MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-Construction and Field Creation

2004· book-chapter· en· W2477158349 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyOnline and offlinePerspective (graphical)Argument (complex analysis)Action researchSociologyAction (physics)Bridging (networking)Field (mathematics)Field researchEpistemologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer scienceEngineeringLawAnthropologyPhilosophyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethnographic research ethics involved in bridging offline and online modes of action research are the focal point of this chapter, written from an anthropological perspective. The specific form of action research in this case study is that of website development. The author argues that online action research, and Web development as a research tool and relationship in ethnographic research are still very much neglected areas of concern, with respect to both virtual ethnography and traditional forms of field work. In this chapter, the argument put forth is that while traditional offline research ethics are still applicable, especially in the offline dimension of research that precedes collaborative Web development, online modes of action research involve substantively different and more fluid conceptions of research ethics, rights and responsibilities for all parties concerned.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.334 · 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