MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037701975 · doi:10.1080/1462394032000053521

Reflective Process in the Study of Illness Stories as Experienced by Three Nurse Teachers

2003· article· en· W2037701975 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 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpansiveScrutinyMeaning (existential)PsychologyNursingMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Every experience should do something to prepare a person for later experiences of a deeper and more expansive quality' (Dewey, 1938/1963, p. 47). In order to learn from our experiences we need to reflect upon and seek meaning within them. A serious personal illness is one such experience that warrants closer scrutiny. The focus here is on three nurse teachers, myself and two co-participants, who have personally experienced a serious illness. Through stories, journals, drawings, conversations, and emerging metaphors my co-participants and I progressively dig deeper with the intent to find meaning our respective illnesses may have in our personal and professional lives. As this is a work-in-progress only the preliminary process and outcomes are outlined.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.438 · 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