MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the Methodology of Getting Lost with Patti Lather

2015· article· en· W42610227 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Fotheringham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismSociologyInnocencePerspective (graphical)EpistemologyAestheticsGender studiesPsychoanalysisPsychologyVisual artsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I review the book Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts towards a Double(d) science (Lather, 2007) from the perspective of a feminist social worker. Lather, using herself and her previous research with women as example, explores feminist methodological issues of loss of authority and loss of innocence as a means towards the creation of new forms of knowledge. This complex book, while extraordinarily difficult, provides the reader with a rare opportunity of getting lost – in the literal sense - in the postmodern poise while simultaneously opening the reader up to new ways of knowing. For feminists and social workers with fortitude and commitment, this book, when complete, offers several golden possibilities for methodological reflection. K

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0170.060
Scholarly communication0.0220.025
Open science0.0060.022
Research integrity0.0040.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.783
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207