MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009338088 · doi:10.18432/ari29485

Fingerprints and Pulp: Nomadic Ethics in Research Practice

2020· article· en· W3009338088 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArt/Research International A Transdisciplinary Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)SociologyQualitative researchProcess (computing)Research ethicsEngineering ethicsVisual artsAestheticsComputer scienceEngineeringArtSocial sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper thinks with Braidotti’s nomadic ethics through the process of making paper to consider the ethical marks and cuts of doing qualitative research. Through the process of making paper, cutting, soaking, blending, pressing, and drying the debris of my dissertation, I consider questions of representation, ethics, and responsibility in qualitative research. Simultaneously, I consider the relations and interactions made possible through an art installation where the handmade paper was displayed as part of my dissertation defense. I contemplate my interactions and conversations with the participants that attended the installation and how these encounters led to new considerations of ethics and representation through research methodology and art.

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)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.008
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 head0.932
GPT teacher head0.769
Teacher spread0.163 · 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