Bibliographic record
Abstract
During an ethnographic experience, which took place in a rehabilitation clinic, I had to deal with situations that required me to make a series of adjustments to my role in the clinic, so as to reduce my involvement with both patients and therapists. Although I expected to feel more at ease as the field progressed, instead, I felt as if my presence were more and more disruptive, and gradually becoming problematic. The systemic approach thus seemed the most relevant for clarifying the complexity of the interactions that were at play, and that shaped my experience, as I had to venture beyond reflexivity. The aim of this methodological article is to shed light on the need for constant adaptation in the ethnologist, in order to maintain their presence in the field, and obtain information to carry out research. In order to do so, a systemic triangulation has been performed based on the Donnadieu and Karsky method, leading to an analysis of some of the difficulties encountered, as highlighted via systemic thinking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".