A Qualitative Person-Oriented Inquiry into Women’s Perspectives on Knowledge and Knowing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study extends theory and research on women’s beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Whereas previous research focused primarily on describing differences between domains of knowing, we focus on differences within domains. We examined individual experiences in the narratives of 8 women (ages 36–42 years) that exemplify 4 different positions in the theoretical model known as Women’s Ways of Knowing (WAYS). Analyses were conducted using an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Although we found that women in our study described views on knowledge consistent with the WAYS domain of knowing in which they were classified, some aspects of the women’s interviews did not fit with their given domain. Two women could be classified under the same WAYS domain and have very different ways of understanding knowledge. We conclude that a person-oriented approach to personal epistemology research adds to and enriches aggregate-level understanding of subject matter. Implications for theoretical models of epistemological development are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it