MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011162922 · doi:10.1080/14623943.2010.487372

Using ‘I’ in scholarly writing: how does reflecting on experience matter?

2010· article· en· W2011162922 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReflective Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)PedagogyReflective thinkingReflective writingPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Reflective practiceSociologyAestheticsVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do students engage in reflective practice in teaching‐learning situations when they have been told that first person writing is not scholarly and that expressions of their thinking are merely opinions? Thinking narratively, three students and a nurse‐teacher critically reflect on identity and knowledge construction emergent through the pattern of knowing that is personal. Exemplars from a Knowledge & Inquiry course show that learning and transformation are, at least in part, internal processes that require activities to foster self‐awareness for working within relationships. Teachers in diverse disciplines are invited to consider how it matters socially that professional education embraces personal transformation through reflecting on and reconstructing experience.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.012
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.388 · 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