A side-by-side methodological approach: Shared experience, informality and adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In shifting environments common to peace and conflict research, methodological grounding is rooted in the fluctuating roles undertaken by the researcher through time and space as one seeks a worldview that is experienced by research participants. This article introduces a side-by-side methodological approach, which developed through research of cross-community interaction amongst ice hockey supporters in Belfast. Influenced by qualitative research that sought to access local voices, this article moves from conceptual guidance and planning into the stands of the SSE Arena, where interviews were conducted with the person in the seat beside the researcher during ice hockey games. In doing so, this immersive methodology offers a contribution to unearthing unheard voices in this oft-studied region through the opportunity to make connection that was unscripted, aided by the informality of the research setting and the limited face-to-face interaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.103 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".