MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235749817 · doi:10.4018/9781591401520.ch004

Conducting Congruent, Ethical Qualitative Research on Internet-Mediated Research Environments

2011· book-chapter· en· W4235749817 on OpenAlex
M. Maczewski, Meaghan Storey, M. Hoskins

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetQualitative researchParticipant observationData collectionInternet researchPsychologyKnowledge managementInternet privacySociologyEngineering ethicsPublic relationsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research practices in Internet-mediated environments are influenced by the dynamic interplay of online, onground and technical research spheres. This chapter illuminates the different ways in which studies can be located within these spheres and explores the resulting implications for researcher-participant relationships. Issues of participant recruitment, data collection, data use and ownership, trust and voice are discussed. The authors suggest that to conduct ethical qualitative research online, the researcher is required to develop and demonstrate awareness of the specific Internet-mediated research contexts, knowledge of technologies used and of research practices congruent with the situatedness of the study.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.643
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.059 · 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