APPRAISING THE ETHOS OF EXPERIENTIAL NARRATIVES: KEY ASPECTS OF A METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this essay, Carola Conle and Michael deBeyer describe their efforts to find a conceptual approach and methodology for the appraisal of the ethos of experiential narratives presented in a particular curriculum context. The language of “implied authorship,”“the patterning of desire,” and “friendships offered and received,” first introduced by Wayne Booth, is elaborated through data from narrative presentations given by local heroes to students. Appraisals seemed possible when a narrative could be placed on Booth’s “scales of friendship” and when the rational qualities of experiential narratives were considered. In addition, data needed to be available in which students’ experiential encounters with the narratives could be seen as occasions where, during such moments of encounter, feelings and desires were created, memories were activated, and events and actions in a narrative were vicariously experienced through those activated phenomena. The authors offer a potential framework for future appraisals.
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 | 0.336 | 0.448 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".