Storytelling to the group and group recreation of the story / Récit d’un conte à un groupe et recréation du conte par le groupe.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A narração de contos pode ser considerada como uma construção de grupo, já que tanto vários autores, pessoas e grupos quanto narradores e receptores contam e recontam os contos à procura de uma recriação do mito original. Este artigo descreve, em inglês e francês, o processo da narração e recriação grupal do conto desenvolvido ao longo de uma oficina com um grupo pequeno de canadenses de cultura bilíngüe. O conto grupal provém do exercício dos papéis narrativos feitos por cada membro do grupo e da montagem dos seus relatos individuais, linguagens e culturas. Duas observações foram feitas: 1) A dinâmica do grupo ensinou que os participantes desenvolveram, ao longo da recriação coletiva dos contos individuais, um tipo de comunicação “fraternal”; 2) As mensagens culturais dos contos do grupo e da história de um participante canadense anglófono, escrita meses depois da oficina, integraram suas próprios mensagens culturais canadenses à mensagem do “conto indutivo” contado pelo narrador, proveniente da sua própria cultura latino-americana. Abstract: Storytelling can be considered a group shared construction since several authors – groups and individuals, narrators and listeners – tell and retell stories, recreating a new myth from the original one. This paper describes in English and French the process of storytelling and group story recreation, that developed in a workshop that was conducted with a small Canadian bilingual cultural group. The group story results from developing storytelling roles in every group member and from joining their individual stories, languages and cultures. In this experience two observations were made: 1) The group dynamics showed along the group recreation of the individual stories, that participants forged a significant “fraternal” kind of communicative style between them. 2) The cultural messages in the Canadian group stories and the post-workshop story of a Canadian Anglophone participant, integrated the own Canadian cultural messages to the Latin American storyteller’s trigger story brought from his own Latin American culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".