MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128996573 · doi:10.1177/160940690600500104

Metaphors as a Bridge to Understanding Educational and Social Contexts

2006· article· en· W2128996573 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

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorLegitimacySocial constructivismVariety (cybernetics)Educational researchQualitative researchBridge (graph theory)SociologyEpistemologyConstructivism (international relations)Education theoryPedagogyQualitative analysisSocial scienceHigher educationComputer sciencePolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational researchers and practitioners are frequently asking questions about how better to understand educational theory and practice. Through the years, they have employed a variety of both quantitative and qualitative methods to elucidate the world of education. In this article, the author explores the epistemological legitimacy of metaphor analysis as a viable means for qualitative educational inquiry. In so doing, he explores the concepts of the theory of abduction, educational research and social constructivism, categories of metaphors, and metaphorical analysis in educational research. In addition, a review of the literature on educational research that uses metaphor analysis as the primary methodology revealed five major themes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.693
GPT teacher head0.688
Teacher spread0.006 · 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