MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Autoethnography

2009· article· en· W4206824173 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersBrock University
KeywordsAutoethnographyReflexivitySensibilitySociologyNarrativeContext (archaeology)EthnographyEpistemologyRepresentation (politics)Relevance (law)Relation (database)AestheticsGender studiesPoliticsSocial scienceAnthropologyGeographyPhilosophyArtLinguisticsComputer sciencePolitical scienceLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The term autoethnography was described by Reed‐Danahay as ‘a form of self‐narrative that places the self within a social context’. We outline autoethnography’s main characteristics, situate it in relation to the so‐called ‘crisis of representation’, and describe five loosely configured categories of autoethnographic practice. We argue that all types of authoethnography dissolve to some extent the boundary between authors and objects of representation, as authors become part of what they are studying, and research subjects are re‐imagined as reflexive narrators of self. Dismantling the author/represented boundary in this way has implications for how researchers understand their objects of research and ethnographic knowledge itself. The study discusses the relevance for geographers of the various categories of autoethnographic practice and of a broader autoethnographic sensibility.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.364 · 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