The Centrality of Reflexivity Through Narrative Beginnings: Towards Living Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autobiographical narrative inquiry is an approach with a specific set of methodological commitments that guide research practice, yet its place and position within the work on reflexive practice are lost or misrepresented. Reflexivity in the form of autobiographical narrative inquiries comes out of the relational ontological commitments of narrative inquiry. By inquiring into Michael’s (the first author) experience as a researcher–practitioner, the purpose of this article is to show how reflexivity, in the form of narrative beginnings, is situated in the ongoing stream of experience. It provides narrative inquirers with avenues to make clear their research justifications/puzzles, become wakeful and open in their inquiries, and support shifts in relational knowing and being. By looking back and noticing the ways stories work on us, rather than us on them, this research explores the reverberations of past experiences and the ripples that carry forward into our future inquiries.
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 | 0.092 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".