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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.649
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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