Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that the act of narrating one’s experience, in particular reorganizing disruptive experiences into a coherent story, is conducive to well-being has become popular in the social sciences and in therapeutic practice. Ways of remembering and narrating draw on templates of the larger societal, historical, and cultural context and thus situate the memory of one’s particular experience within a collectively shared world. However, other voices argue that the driving force of storytelling is less the need for coherence or continuity, but rather the reconstruction of a sense of agency in intersubjective relationships. This paper will explore the question of what is at stake, what is existentially imperative, in the human practice of narrating experience. Using a phenomenological framework that pays attention to the intersubjective space of perception and experience, I will apply narrative approaches drawing on medical anthropolog y, linguistics, and psychology to my conversations with Mary, a long-time caregiver for chronically ill family members.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".