RESEARCHING PAIN — RE-SEARCHING THE RESEARCHER: PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN ON THE INNER LIFE AND ANXIETY OF THE INVESTIGATOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seldom do researchers comment on or discuss in their publications the impact of their research on themselves, nor do they explore the impact of their emotions on their research data gathering or findings. The authors provide excerpts from two of their own research studies to illustrate some of the personal dimensions which they, along with George Devereux, claim are central and significant in the process of social science research. We suggest that is it is important to introduce new researchers to the psychoemotional dimensions of the researcher’s own experiences in the research process in order to both sensitize them to potential research findings (often hidden), and prepare them for the possible (even likely) impacts on themselves as researchers, professionals, and human beings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".