Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we report upon the adoption of Jerome Bruner’s narrative approach, which served as a theoretical framework for analyzing, representing, and disseminating more than 60 hrs of documentary research footage. We invited international scholars in the field of the social sciences and humanities to document their philosophies and autobiographies on videotape. We asked the following questions: What are the overarching themes or theories that unite the scholars’ methodological and conceptual frameworks? How have the scholars’ unique lived experiences contributed to their interpretivist or critical viewpoints? What autobiographical stories rise to the forefront? Can these stories be linked or connected to represent an unfolding narrative through both space and time? Through the course of narrative analysis, significant themes such as poverty, social inequality, classism, oppression, and colonization emerged from the videotaped dialogues. The scholars’ unique narratives coalesced into a single narrative that traced and documented the history of qualitative research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".