MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043162520 · doi:10.1177/1468794108099320

Multiple text analysis in narrative research: visual, written, and spoken stories of experience

2009· article· en· W2043162520 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

VenueQualitative Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeVariety (cybernetics)Construct (python library)Reading (process)Narrative networkNarrative inquiryNarrative criticismPsychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using multiple means of expressing stories about observations, ideas, emotions, and activities can expand a researcher's opportunity to better understand the complex narrative participants construct about how they experience life events. This article includes a description of three types of narrative texts (written, spoken, and visual) and an analysis process that includes a variety of readings for each type of text as well as a relational reading for a combination of texts. A narrative research study is used to illustrate the model. Discussion includes the challenges and benefits of using multiple texts in narrative research and suggests other forms of research design where multiple texts may be appropriate.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.561
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.133 · 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