MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959234076 · doi:10.20360/g2vp4n

Poetic Inquiry: A Fierce, Tender, and Mischievous Relationship with Lived Experience

2015· article· en· W1959234076 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sean Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersKrell Institute
KeywordsPoetryAestheticsLived experienceWork (physics)SociologyLiteratureArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common to poetic inquirers is a sensitivity to the ways traditional qualitative analysis can systematize and simplify, oftentimes generating theories and practices that are out of kilter with our intuitive experience of being in the world. In this paper I look at how the richness of lived experience can be sustained in poetic inquiry, and in so doing, offer the terms fierce, tender, and mischievous as qualities of engagement that are often exemplified in the ways poetic inquirers live and work.

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.215
Scholarly communication0.0280.034
Open science0.0030.028
Research integrity0.0050.013
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207