MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010476214 · doi:10.1080/14623940308266

A Reflexive Inquiry of Two Non-Smokers: A Trans-Generational Tale of Social Gospel and Social Norms Marketing

2003· article· en· W2010476214 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Angela Forsythe, Dorothy Lander

Bibliographic record

VenueReflective Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersSt. Francis Xavier University
KeywordsReflexivitySociologyGospelMeaning (existential)SituatedEthnographySocial marketingGender studiesPsychologySocial sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceLiteratureAnthropologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the course of one academic year, two researchers combined research methods of reflexive inquiry and memory-work to understand the situated learning during their teen years in terms of its influence on their not taking up cigarette smoking. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the influence of the social gospel were central to the Ontario farm community in which Dorothy grew up in the 1960s. Angie grew up in small town Nova Scotia during the 1990s, exposed to parental smoking and the social marketing of the health hazards of smoking. The researchers draw on the critical incident questionnaire (Brookfield, 1995) as a way to remember 'nodal moments' in their smoking/non-smoking autobiographies. Their autobiographies serve as embodied reflexive texts and triggers to engage in dialogue on the deeper social meaning of not taking up smoking as teenagers. They conclude that traces of the social gospel remain as an influence in Angie's teen years, and that Dorothy was exposed to anti-smoking social marketing in the 1960s even before it had this name.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.056
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.455
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflective PracticeSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207