Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we demonstrate a way of finding points of departure for re-authoring “alternative stories.” Our concept is that the multigenerational family of origin can be a rich resource of “collective knowledge” (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985). Collective knowledge (Epston, 1999) is knowledge we gather from a group of people (Denborough, 2010, 2012). We propose expanding these practices to include using collective knowledge from multiple generations of the family experience. In our therapeutic conversations we collect ideas from the histories of multiple generations within a family. Embedded in these histories are stories of how to deal with difficulties that bear resemblance to those confronted by the client. This collective knowledge can help people gain ideas of how to deal with their own difficulties (Nelson, 1995; Ungar, 2006).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".