MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157765938 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4613

An Analysis of Reflections on Researcher Positionality

2021· article· en· W3157765938 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwatoyin Olukiun, Elizabeth Mkandawire, Jeri Antilla, Faten Alfaifa, Jennifer Weitzel, Victoria Scheer, Mary Olukotun, Lucy Mkandawire‐Valhmu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityPraxisInsiderQualitative researchScholarshipSociologyEpistemologyAutoethnographyProcess (computing)Engineering ethicsSocial scienceComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflexivity is a central tenet of qualitative research. Engaging in self-reflexive praxis allows researchers to identify areas of tension in the research process that need to be further deconstructed. In this paper, we draw on our collective self-reflective experiences as qualitative health researchers whose scholarship is informed by critical and postcolonial feminist epistemologies to offer some guidance on how to approach the concept of insider versus outsider in the research process. Specifically, we analyze recurring methodological tensions related to positionality and outline how they were addressed. The lessons learned from our studies can be instructive to other qualitative researchers

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.735
GPT teacher head0.760
Teacher spread0.025 · 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207