MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182832976 · doi:10.1080/21565503.2021.1950015

Sources of evidence and openness in field-intensive research on violent conflict

2021· article· en· W3182832976 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anastasia Shesterinina

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics Groups and Identities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOpenness to experienceField (mathematics)Political scienceCriminologySocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article engages with Steven Lubet’s arguments in Interrogating Ethnography on reliability of evidence and replication of findings in ethnographic research. It draws on eight months of immersive fieldwork on Abkhaz mobilization in the Georgian-Abkhaz war of 1992–1993 to show that field-intensive researchers who work on sensitive political topics leverage multiple sources to develop their insights and engage in reflexivity while prioritizing the safety of their research participants. It is these practices that underlie the trustworthiness of research and form the basis for the evaluation of research results rather than verification standards proposed by Lubet that do not, and cannot, apply to this kind of research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.170 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics Groups and IdentitiesSame topicPolitical Conflict and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207