MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491173531 · doi:10.4324/9781315429618

Engaging in Narrative Inquiry

2016· book· en· W1491173531 on OpenAlexaff
D. Jean Clandinin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeNarrative inquiryPsychologySociologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narrative inquiry examines human lives through the lens of a narrative, honoring lived experience as a source of important knowledge and understanding. In this concise volume, D. Jean Clandinin, one of the pioneers in using narrative as research, updates her classic formulation on narrative inquiry (with F. Michael Connelly), clarifying, extending and refining the method based on an additional decade of work. A valuable feature is the inclusion of several exemplary cases with the author’s critique and analysis of the work. The rise of interest in narrative inquiry in recent years makes this is an essential guide for researchers and an excellent text for graduate courses in qualitative inquiry.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations871
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207