MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362581022 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6292

“Research Is Not Innocent”: A Review of Thalia Mulvihill and Raji Swaminathan’s Collaborative Qualitative Research

2023· review· en· W4362581022 on OpenAlex
Daniel L. Wulff

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

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchAppreciative inquirySociologyPsychologyPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mulvihill and Swaminathan have written a wide-ranging book that takes a close look at how qualitative research can be collaborative and what implications come from how collaborative practices are taken up. While taking an appreciative stance toward collaborative research practices, they do not shy away from the challenges and unrealized potentials that are involved. This book serves as both an introduction to the basics of collaborative qualitative research and an in-depth look at the issues for the more experienced collaborative researcher.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.662
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.018 · 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