MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994926365 · doi:10.1111/anhu.12258

Forbidden Fieldwork: The Affair as Research Method

2019· article· en· W2994926365 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropology & Humanism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceCredibilityField (mathematics)Action researchSociologyAction (physics)Field researchReflection (computer programming)Grounded theoryPsychoanalysisEpistemologyPsychologyMedia studiesPedagogyQualitative researchSocial scienceAestheticsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This creative nonfiction essay is both a reflection about a complex intimate relationship that developed during doctoral fieldwork and a commentary on what anthropologists are socialized to compartmentalize, silence, and refuse for the sake of academic credibility. Grounded in the author’s personal experience of having an affair in the field, it explains that pursing a course of action that the author was trained and socialized to eschew had the unexpected outcome of advancing the author’s anthropological research.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.326
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.336 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropology & HumanismSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207