MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884847224 · doi:10.1177/0891241618785225

When Crime Is a “Young Man’s Game” and the Ethnographer Is a Woman: Gendered Researcher Experiences in Two Different Contexts

2018· article· en· W2884847224 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra M. Bucerius, Marta Marika Urbanik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Ethnography · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyDisadvantagedParticipant observationGender studiesSociologyQualitative researchPerceptionField researchField (mathematics)Social relationRelation (database)CriminologySocial psychologyPsychologySocial scienceAnthropologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethnographers have long explored the challenges of gender dynamics in researcher–participant relationships, particularly in relation to attempts by female researchers to gain and maintain access to male research populations. However, little is known about these relationships in urban research settings characterized by crime and violence, where gender relations between young men and women are shaped by often extreme forms of social marginalization. Drawing on the field experiences of two female ethnographers who studied disadvantaged and criminalized groups of men in Germany and Canada, our article sheds light on how our experiences in our respective research sites were molded by the local contexts where our ethnographies took place. In particular, we analyze how the respective cultural meanings that the men subscribed to affected their perceptions of women, and how these perceptions ultimately shaped our interactions with our research groups, structured our gendered experiences, and presented quite different challenges for us as female “crime” ethnographers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.036
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary EthnographySame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207