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
Using Gubrium and Holstein’s (2009) approach to narrative analysis, I examine how couples and I co-authored and co-edited shared meanings while talking about “we-ness.” I pay particular attention to my role as researcher and how I was active in inviting these conversations. I also attend to how participants and I developed joint meanings, negotiated individual and relational identities, and managed couples’ public image through processes of collaboration and control; specifically, by indicating agreement, navigating disagreements, and passing over alternative stories. Participants observed that talking about we-ness, with one another and with me, increased their sense of closeness. Thus, orienting to moments of togetherness and discussing past, present, and future experiences as a couple had implications for their understandings of “we” and “us.” I discuss the implications of my results, inviting researchers and therapists to consider how they may be active in shaping meaning- and identity-making conversations with participants and clients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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