MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786222513 · doi:10.7202/1042889ar

Thinking with Stories

2018· article· en· W2786222513 on OpenAlex
Jessica Shaw

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social work review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeNarrative criticismNarrative inquirySociologySocial workWork (physics)Narrative networkEpistemologyProcess (computing)PsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a relational epistemology and research methodology, narrative inquiry is one way that people come to know experience through story. Social workers are experienced in working with people’s stories, yet there is a dearth of literature where both social work and narrative inquiry are discussed alongside each other. This paper highlights the particular ways that a researcher commits to living and understanding a narrative view of experience as they engage in research that is relational. It explains some of the language that narrative inquirers use to describe their work, and uses examples from a social work doctoral dissertation to demonstrate the methodological touchstones of a social work narrative inquiry. It concludes with an invitation for social workers to consider narrative inquiry as a process that can guide and advance both clinical practice and social justice work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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