Community Story Circles: An Opportunity to Rethink the Epistemological Approach to Heritage Interpretive Planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storytelling is one way of sharing what it means to live in a particular place: its history, inhabitants, opportunities, challenges, rhythms, ways of life, and obligations to that place. This paper offers an exploration of the nature and significance of coming together to orally share place-based stories, within the context of environmental and cultural interpretation. The community story circle invites co-existence of diverse stories independent of time. Historic, near past, and in-the moment stories of place mingle and play in unexpected ways, offering textured insight into what it means to be in a particular place. While all forms of narrative inquiry are valuable for interpretive planning, our findings suggest that the synergy of the community story circle provides a depth and diversity that may not emerge with more individualistic narrative methods. Beyond interpretation, this mode of coming to know place offers possibilities for other forms of place-based education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it