MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207014327 · doi:10.1177/10778004211073071

Writing as Being: On the Existential Primacy of Writing for a Deaf Scholar

2022· article· en· W4207014327 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Snoddon

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismAutoethnographyDeconstruction (building)NormativeSociologySubject (documents)IdeologyPsychoanalysisLinguisticsEpistemologyPsychologyPhilosophyGender studiesPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article employs analytic autoethnography to study online events and social media that I participated in as a deaf scholar during the COVID-19 pandemic. With reference to Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction, this article asserts the existential primacy of writing as a critical subject of inquiry for confronting normative language ideologies about what language is and how and where language is produced, received, understood, and performed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.090
Scholarly communication0.0170.018
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207