MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230261507 · doi:10.1177/1077800412462984

Telling

2012· article· en· W4230261507 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Tamas, Jonathan Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestimonialWitnessPerformative utteranceSociologyPower (physics)AutoethnographyAestheticsQualitative researchEpistemologyPsychologyPsychoanalysisGender studiesLawSocial scienceArtPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testimony—the process of narrating yourself before a witness—lies at the heart of qualitative research and therapy. In both, the authors seek stories we can live in, trying on analytic frames to make sense of experience. Testimonial acts may be seen as the engine of personal and social change and our primary source of knowledge. However, particularly in contexts of trauma and difference, testimony may be troubled by our discursive constraints and relations of power. This piece offers a performative, open-ended exploration of the (mis)uses of testimony within and between scholarly and therapeutic frames.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.685
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.002 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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