MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124294557 · doi:10.20472/iac.2025.068.003

BECOMING AN ETHNOGRAPHER IN A DIGITAL WORLD: ASSEMBLAGES, ETHICS & RHIZOMATIC PRACTICES

2025· article· W7124294557 on OpenAlex
Tsoghik Grigoryan, Anna Hakobyan

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyPerspective (graphical)Qualitative researchKey (lock)Participant observationWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As digital technologies and algorithmic systems reshape everyday life, ethnographic methods must adapt to new, fluid terrains.This paper explores the ethical and methodological challenges of conducting ethnography in digitally mediated environments, where boundaries between the real and virtual, human and non-human, are increasingly blurred.Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari's concepts of rhizome, becoming, and assemblage, the paper proposes a reconceptualization of ethnographic practice as non-linear, relational, and responsive to complexity.These ideas offer a framework for engaging with the shifting identities, structures, and ethical concerns of the digital age.By embracing rhizomatic thinking, this work invites ethnographers to reimagine the field as a dynamic assemblage of connections.It offers new pathways for reflexive, ethical, and theoretically grounded inquiry in networked spaces.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207