MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Navigating the Borderlands of Transnational Research

2012· article· en· W2542694301 on OpenAlexaffabout
Regine King

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational Social Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceGenocideSociologyPower (physics)Political sciencePsychologySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a journey to the borderland, a place in which I engaged and bridged opposite worldviews of my educational background in Rwanda and experience of my PhD studies in Canada to generate knowledge. The paper draws from my dissertation research grounded in a community healing program developed in post-genocide Rwanda and the factors that influenced its research methods and knowledge produced. This article highlights the power of dialogue, deep reflection and openness in transnational research. The paper recommends learning environments that invite different ways of knowing, interdisciplinary and transnational approaches to knowledge and giving voice to those silenced by written documents. The paper will be useful for educators, researchers and learners in cross-cultural and marginal settings.1

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 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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.480
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.174 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransnational Social ReviewSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207