Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narrative Inquiry is a research methodology that enables a researcher to explore experience through a metaphorical analytic three-dimensional space where time, interaction of personal and social conditions, and place make up the dimensions for working with co-participant stories. This inquiry process, analysis, and interpretation involve a series of reflective cognitive movements that make possible the reformulations that take place in the research journey. In this article, I retell the process of my inquiry in moving from field texts (data sources) to research text (interpretation of experience) in Narrative Inquiry. I draw from an inquiry on how nurses experience living their values amidst organizational change to share how I as an inquirer/researcher, moved from field texts to narrative accounts; narrative resonant threads; composite letter as the narrative of experience; personal, practical, and social justifications to construct the research text and represent it another form as a poem. These phases in the inquiry involve considerations in the analytic and interpretive process that are essential in understanding how to conduct Narrative Inquiry. Lastly and unique to my inquiry, I share how a letter can be used as an analytic device in Narrative Inquiry.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".