MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169684007 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.2009.28.1.1

Keeping Faith: A Conversation with Michael White

2009· article· en· W2169684007 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jim Duvall, Karen Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationNarrativeFaithWhite (mutation)SociologyMedia studiesPsychoanalysisPsychologyArtTheologyLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This interview with Michael White for the Journal of Systemic Therapies consisted of a series of conversations that occurred over a five-year period, beginning on October 22, 2002 and ending October 4, 2007, almost six months prior to his death. All of the interviews occurred following five-day training programs that Michael was teaching at the Hincks-Dellcrest Institute in Toronto, Canada. The initial interview began with Adrienne Chambon, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto and Jim Duvall. Adrienne teaches narrative studies at the University of Toronto. She was unavailable for the second meeting, therefore, Karen Young, who is a BTTC-I faculty member, was asked to join the discussion. Michael was invited to step into the foreground of this conversation by providing glimpses of particular aspects of his life, rendering him more visible to the readers. These aspects of his life provided themes of circumstances that could be illuminated and their influences regarding the development of many of the ideas and practices that constitute what we now identify as narrative therapy, could be better understood. We were particularly interested in Michael's notion of keeping faith, staying true to those important sentiments, learnings, and circumstances in life that clarify what is important that we give value to.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systemic TherapiesSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207