MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168470165 · doi:10.1177/10497323211015966

Observation and Institutional Ethnography: Helping Us to See Better

2021· article· en· W3168470165 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Balcom, Shelley Doucet, Anik Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsEthnographyData collectionSociologyParticipant observationQualitative researchHealth careSocial scienceAnthropologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observation is a staple data collection method, which is used in many qualitative approaches, including both traditional and institutional ethnographies. While observation is one of the most used data collection methods in traditional ethnography, less is written about its use by institutional ethnographers. Institutional ethnography is an approach to social research where the aim is to explicate how peoples' every activities are coordinated or ruled by different institutions. In this article we explore uses of observation as a data collection method, focusing on its use in institutional ethnography. We use examples from the health care literature to show how observation can be beneficial and help institutional ethnographers see better.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
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 head0.835
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207