MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W106281636 · doi:10.1007/0-306-47155-8_7

Variance in the Meaning of Time by Family Cycle, Period, Social Context, and Ethnicity

2005· book-chapter· en· W106281636 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Tindale

Bibliographic record

VenueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupPeriod (music)Meaning (existential)Variance (accounting)Context (archaeology)SociologySocial psychologyPsychologyHistoryAnthropologyArtEconomicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research that provides a reader with a context for understanding its purpose and results is theory driven research. Without context there is only empiricism (Tindale, 1991a). Theory before design does not mean the two are mutually exclusive. Indeed, in research that is relevant to the user, they are integral to each other. The choice of methodology made by a researcher is (should be) governed by the theory that gives context to the research question asked. Thus, when asking questions about time, the method used needs to be the method best able to illuminate the question in the context in which it was asked. In short, the sense of time is being sought. When individuals become family members through birth, adoption, marriage, or other means, they enter into a context within which the meaning of time is socially constructed. The construction of time is rich in the warp and weave of meaning. Its meaning has developed and been passed on through multiple generations; it is ongoing and there is a sense of anticipating the future. Running across the movement in time over

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooksSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207