MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992239664 · doi:10.1177/1473325011425892

Relational poetry in the expression of social identity: Creating interweaving dialogues

2011· article· en· W1992239664 on OpenAlexafffund
Akin Taiwo

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Social Work · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsPoetrySociologyIdentity (music)Meaning (existential)Expression (computer science)Interpretation (philosophy)PoliticsStyle (visual arts)Social constructionismAestheticsEpistemologySocial scienceLiteraturePhilosophyLinguisticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social constructionism holds that meanings are produced in social interactions, which are, in turn, shaped by specific socio-cultural, political, and economic forces. These forces also affect our sense of self, social identities, knowledge, and interpretation of realities. Following the work of Witkin (2007) on relational poetry, this author interweaves a second poem within the lines and verses of Kumsa’s (2007) poem, thereby producing a poetic dialogue and a new poem. This article highlights the inter-subjectivities of the human experience and the co-construction of meaning arising from multiple experiences, realities and truths. It presents relational poetry as another entrée into our co-constructed realities. It is an experiment with a mode of writing and engagement about inter-subjectivities. In using this literary style, this article also fulfills the ethical responsibility within social work of bringing awareness to voices and perspectives that have been marginalized and oppressed.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Social WorkSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207