Levels of Narrative Analysis in Health Psychology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past 10-15 years have seen a rapid increase in the study of narrative across all the social sciences. It is sometimes assumed that narrative has the same meaning irrespective of the context in which it is expressed. This article considers different levels of narrative analysis within health psychology. Specifically, it considers the character of health and illness narratives as a function of the personal, interpersonal, positional and societal levels of analysis. At the personal level of analysis narratives are portrayed as expressions of the lived experience of the narrator. At the interpersonal level of analysis the narrative is one that is co-created in dialogue. At the positional level of analysis the analysis considers the differences in social position between the narrator and the listener. The societal level of analysis is concerned with the socially shared stories that are characteristic of certain communities or societies. The challenge is to articulate the connections between these different levels of narrative analysis and to develop strategies to promote emancipatory narratives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it