MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578015106 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v14i1.59

Narrative Inquiry: Honouring the Complexity of the Stories We Live

2004· article· en· W1578015106 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeHonourNarrative inquiryMeaning (existential)Narrative criticismSociologyAestheticsLived experienceEpistemologyPsychologyLiteratureHistoryPsychoanalysisArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narrative inquiry focuses on the composition of a story as a way to represent experiences. A challenge for narrative researchers is how to compose a story that represents experiences truthfully while also acknowledging that in all our narrative research we can never tell the whole story. There are always far more experiences than we can narrate in the complex and wide-ranging experiences that each of us lives daily. This paper considers the complexity of researching lived stories in order to invite readers to enter into an ongoing and energetic dialogue. I want to honour the multiplicity, meaning making, and mystery that are at the heart of the searching in narrative research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.418
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