Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paradigm lost? the theory and practice of anti-discriminatory research, Carol Truman defining without discrimination? minority ethnic groups and social problems - the case of street youths in Canada, Shirley Roy and Jacques Rheaume an integrated approach to human rights and social research, Stanley Whitkin from critical thought to emancipatory action - contradictory research goals?, Beth Humphries needs assessment - crucial step in emancipatory work, Donna M. Mertens colonial methodology? a contextual perspective on data collection, Anne Ryen teaching and learning in participatory research - issues and experiences from practice, Marion Martin hearing voices? methodological, epistemological and practical issues in research when telling participants' stories of childhood sexual abuse, Claire Woodward group inquiry - a democratic dialogue?, Julie Kent disabled women in El Salvador re-framing themselves - a case study of the women's programme of ACOGIPRI, Joan B. Cohen cultural and sexual identities in in-depth interviewing, Constantinos Phellas public policy research as politics, or the Canadian Shelter Movement's methodological battle for state recognition, Melanie Joyner challenging the boundaries in participatory research, Grindl Dockery South Asian women within the household - the difficulties and dilemmas of carrying out research, Kalwant Bhopal.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".