SocArXiv
metadata only
Harnessing Human–AI Interpretive Difference: Reflexive, Accountable Computational Interpretivism
Recent debate over GenAI in qualitative inquiry centres on concerns that computational participation reinforces postpositivist dominance. Critical analysts propose excluding it, out-theorising it, or continuously inspecting its entanglements. In parallel, a growing body of work builds architectures
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Harnessing Human–AI Interpretive Difference: Reflexive, Accountable Computational Interpretivism#976806
- How AI Changes DevOps Performance: A Mechanism-Based Simulation#1116745
- How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding#998664
- AI Autonomous Evolution X: Structural Foundations of Emergent Autonomous Reasoning in Large-Scale AI Systems#72495
- Conceptual Understanding and Conceptual Change Through Human AI Collaboration in Science Education: An Integrated Conceptual Framework from a Systematic Literature Review.#1098060
Record · ID 977352
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive