MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251573098 · doi:10.7202/1084631ar

Enjeux éthiques de la relation chercheur-participant en recherche narrative

2013· article· fr· W4251573098 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Claire Duchesne, Amanda Skinn

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches qualitatives · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeRelation (database)SociologyPsychologyArtComputer scienceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il est communément admis que la relation entre le chercheur et le participant, en recherche qualitative, présente de nombreux enjeux d’ordre éthique. Les particularités de ce type de relation, dans le cadre de la recherche narrative, sont cependant méconnues et peu documentées, notamment dans la communauté scientifique francophone. Cet article fait état des réflexions qu’ont suscitées chez une chercheure et une participante, lors d’une recherche narrative, les questions de responsabilité du chercheur, de différence des statuts et de proximité interpersonnelle. Des pistes de solution aux défis rencontrés seront également présentées.

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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
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 categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.838
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.168 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches qualitativesSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207