Investigating Change: Compatible Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last century could be noted as an era of the emergence and rapid spread of postmodernism. The field of family therapy has not escaped its influences. During the last decade alternative approaches to family counselling emerged which emphasized multiple accounts of reality language as a venue for reality construction and primacy of social interaction. These recent changes have created a need for theoretically compatible research methodologies to study family therapy especially its postmodern offspring. Discourse analysis affords both practitioners and researchers a theoretically compatible methodology for understanding postmodern family therapies. Discourse analysis can be used to investigate how change and other phenomena are constructed or accomplished in the course of therapy. This methodology honors the interactive performance of family therapy and provides the details of discursive shifts to help therapists recognize and participate in conversational openings in their dialogue with clients. Moreover when therapists take a discursive stance the results of discursive research can beneficially inform their practice.
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 | 0.369 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.058 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".