MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234647403 · doi:10.4000/communication.10304

Dána-Ain DAVIS et Christa CRAVEN (2016), Feminist Ethnography: Thinking Through Methodologies, Challenges, and Possibilities

2019· article· en· W4234647403 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Florence Darveau-Routhier

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographySociologyAin'tHumanitiesPhilosophyArtGender studiesAnthropologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les points de rencontre entre les épistémologies féministes et la critique ethnographique sont nombreux, mais ils s’articulent principalement autour de la remise en question d’une théorie générale de la connaissance et d’une réflexion sur le rôle de la subjectivité dans la production de la connaissance. En utilisant les interactions situées et contextualisées comme principal matériau, l’ethnographie est tout indiquée pour éclairer certaines des préoccupations fondamentales de la recherche fé...

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.063 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunicationSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207