MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010976900 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2020.3928

The Insider-Researcher Status: A Challenge for Social Work Practice Research

2020· article· en· W3010976900 on OpenAlexaff
Grace Chammas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsiderQualitative researchSociologyPublic relationsNeutralityPopulationPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For insider-researchers engaged in qualitative inquiry, positionality and researcher neutrality are major concerns. Based on a study of human rights in social work practice among asylum seekers in a public institutional setting, this article highlights the insider-researcher status where the researcher was also a practitioner in the setting. Specifically, the author discusses the insider-researcher’s positionality towards knowledge of the population served, knowledge of the setting and knowledge of the research process by examining both the advantages and limitations of being an insider-researcher, as well as highlights ways to address and overcome these limitations.

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)0.606
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.565
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6060.565
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0320.142
Scholarly communication0.0420.050
Open science0.0090.039
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.649
GPT teacher head0.663
Teacher spread0.014 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207