MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The narrative research trail: values of ambiguity and relationships

2005· review· en· W2413678367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Engle Angela Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Researcher · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityNarrativeConversationExperiential learningNarrative inquiryPsychologyFunction (biology)Participant observationHealth careNursing researchNursingSociologyPedagogyMedicineLinguisticsSocial sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engle Angela Chan sets out the experiential function of ambiguity in nursing research through a narrative study of Canadian college nurse educators. Through the methods of conversation, journal writing and participation observation, the author, who was also one of the participants, explored with her colleagues the impact of nursing education and healthcare changes on their teaching lives. The article examines how researcher-participant relationships illuminate research outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.207
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.207
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0200.082
Scholarly communication0.0360.040
Open science0.0030.026
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.845
GPT teacher head0.722
Teacher spread0.123 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse ResearcherSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207