MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132962566 · doi:10.1177/0894318406296805

Review of Research Related to Parse's Theory of Human Becoming

2007· review· en· W2132962566 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

VenueNursing Science Quarterly · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman researchParsingFrame (networking)Computer scienceQualitative researchData scienceEngineering ethicsManagement scienceEpistemologyPsychologySociologyCognitive scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial scienceEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ninety-three retrievable studies guided by the human becoming theory between 1985 and 2006, are reviewed. A summary of the studies is tabulated according to the two basic human becoming research methods, the human becoming applied research method, and other qualitative research methods using human becoming as the frame of reference. The authors provide an overview of the studies and the human becoming research methods and further illuminate the findings of studies reviewed under four major themes that describe the phenomena studied.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.316 · 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