MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411660765 · doi:10.1177/17506980251334975

Notes toward a methodology of haunting

2025· article· en· W4411660765 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHistoryEpistemologyPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the methodological implications of Avery Gordon's work on haunting for the field of memory studies. Like Gordon, we take issue with forms of positivist social-scientific research which fail to even acknowledge (let alone reckon with) ghosts. Specifically, we emphasize how these methodological orientations to research and knowledge production are thoroughly ensconced in Euro-western knowledge paradigms that rationalize colonialism. To do so, we draw on Indigenous studies scholars, many of whom have themselves expanded Gordon's approach to haunting. By bringing insights about haunting as a methodology to bear on the field of memory studies, we aim to provoke a wider conversation about haunting's usefulness, including its risks and limitations, as an approach to producing knowledge about violent pasts and their durability in the present.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.174 · 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