MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043382797 · doi:10.1097/ans.0b013e3182902064

Critical Feminist Narrative Inquiry

2013· article· en· W2043382797 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

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of AlbertaCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeEpistemologyNarrative inquirySociologyContext (archaeology)TriangulationInjusticeNarrative networkNarrative criticismPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical feminist narrative inquiry is informed by the theoretical triangulation of critical, feminist, and symbolic interactionist perspectives. We first locate this approach within narrative research and identify the epistemological underpinnings and assumptions supporting this innovative methodology. The analytic and interpretive objectives and processes involved to achieve a double-hermeneutic narrative analysis are detailed. We conclude by proposing that this novel approach is suitable to advance knowledge about the nature and context of individual experiences, to expose circumstances leading to social injustice and health inequities, and ultimately to contribute to improved health outcomes for traditionally silenced, marginalized, or vulnerable populations.

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)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.017
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.362
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.333 · 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