Critical companionship part 2: using the framework
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
Part 1 presented the critical companionship framework for facilitating experiential learning, with exemplars of expertise. The development and testing of the framework were outlined. In Part 2, we show the framework being used by new critical companions, without educational backgrounds or previous facilitation of learning experience. The reflective accounts of the critical companions not only show how they analysed their work using the framework, but also reveal that these early experiences helped those they were facilitating to unravel their practice and look critically at how they, and others, practise. Some accounts hint at the outcomes for patients and relatives and show how critical companionship became integrated with leadership roles. We conclude that the framework can be useful in helping new critical companions to acquire effective critical companionship skills. In addition, we tentatively suggest that the development of expertise, as demonstrated in Part 1, is likely to take at least five years, unless the individual is already a skilled facilitator.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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