MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001813104 · doi:10.1177/1609406919898917

Telling My Tale: Reflections on the Process of Visual Storytelling for Children and Youth Living With Cystic Fibrosis and Muscular Dystrophy in Canada

2020· article· en· W3001813104 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fiona J Moola, Nivatha Moothathamby, Laura McAdam, Melinda Solomon, Robert Varadi, D. Elizabeth Tullis, Joe Reisman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioSt. Michael's HospitalWest Park Healthcare CentreUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of OttawaHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStorytellingNarrativeWitnessNarrative inquirySociologyAestheticsArtLiteraturePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Storytelling is perennial to the human condition. We all tell stories and we all bear witness to the stories of others. According to narrative scholars, only certain stories are valorized in contemporary culture, while others go unrecognized. The inability to recognize ourselves and identities in contemporary cultural narratives can contribute to the silencing and muting of certain lives and voices. Young people with life-shortening conditions, such as cystic fibrosis (CF) and muscular dystrophy (MD), are rarely afforded the opportunity to have their stories heard and affirmed in contemporary cultural spaces. In this article, we reflect on the methodological process of engaging in a study known as “Telling My Tale,” that is, a storybook study featuring narratives and artwork by young people with CF and MD. Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, we critically reflect upon the methodological lessons, advances, and innovations we have learned, including theoretical musings, the process of exhibiting some of the artwork in a public art gallery, challenges faced along the way, analytical conundrums, and the role of technology in artistic creation for participants with limited hand function. In so doing, we hope to further methodological and theoretical development and innovation in narrative and artistic traditions to better center the voices, lives, tales, and experiences of young people with life-shortening conditions.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207