{
  "schema":"ULTRACON_CON_SOURCES_V42",
  "version":"4.2",
  "updated":"2026-09-14",
  "range":"S80-S85",
  "principle":"These sources support reflexivity, reliability, provenance and adversarial validation. They extend, not replace, S01-S79.",
  "sources":[
    {"id":"S80","area":"Research reflexivity","title":"Berger — Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468794112468475","doi":"10.1177/1468794112468475","type":"peer_reviewed_methodology","supports":["researcher position affects inquiry","reflexivity as quality-control practice","insider/outsider position can shape interpretation"]},
    {"id":"S81","area":"Research reflexivity","title":"Olmos-Vega et al. — A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149","url":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287","type":"peer_reviewed_methodology","supports":["reflexivity is continuous and multifaceted","subjectivity and context shape research decisions","reflexivity should be communicated across the research process"]},
    {"id":"S82","area":"Inter-coder reliability","title":"González-Prieto et al. — Reliability in software engineering qualitative research through Inter-Coder Agreement","url":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121223001024","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2023.111707","type":"peer_reviewed_methodology","supports":["inter-coder agreement as a reliability audit","Krippendorff alpha framework","disagreement analysis can improve coding schemes"]},
    {"id":"S83","area":"Inter-coder reliability","title":"Krippendorff — Reliability of recording instructions: Multivariate agreement for nominal data","url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bs.3830160305","doi":"10.1002/bs.3830160305","type":"foundational_methodology","supports":["agreement-based reliability of coding instructions","variable numbers of coders","nominal multilevel decisions"]},
    {"id":"S84","area":"Data provenance","title":"W3C — PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","type":"technical_standard","supports":["Entity/Activity/Agent provenance model","wasDerivedFrom and wasAttributedTo relations","interoperable provenance representation","specialization for domain-specific provenance"]},
    {"id":"S85","area":"Adversarial validation","title":"Ellemers et al. — Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32170010/","doi":"10.1073/pnas.1906720117","type":"peer_reviewed_methodology","supports":["adversarial collaboration for competing models","joint design around rival hypotheses","constructive theory refinement rather than winner-take-all dispute"]}
  ]
}