Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study to examines the experience of attaining respect in the face of differences through the eyes of eight North American Caucasian members of the helping professions. A hermeneutic- phenomenological, multiple case study design using an interview guide approach was the methodology chosen to describe the co-researchers' experience of respect — what it is, and how to attain respect when it is lost. During audio-taped interviews, the coresearchers related stories of times when they had to struggle to be respectful. After relating the stories they were asked for their thoughts on the meaning of respect. The analysis revealed a six step non-linear process of becoming respectful. The themes involved in the process are the trigger event, the reaction, stopping the reaction, shift in focus to examine one's self, acceptance of self, looking again at the other, acceptance of the other and the outcome behaviour. Intrinsically involved in the process were concepts of identity, self respect, boundaries, context, and expectations. These themes were simultaneously foundational and integral to the process themes. The study compares the philosophical definitions of respect, Rogers' concept of unconditional positive regard the co-researchers' conceptions of respect and their lived experience finding a core consensus.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".