Using Contextual Action Theory and Action-Project Method to Study Real-Time Identity
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
This conceptual paper describes how Contextual Action Theory and its associated methodology, the Action-Project Method, can be used to study real-time identity processes as they are embedded in identity construction over time. Contextual Action Theory is a conceptual framework based on the view that human action is goal-directed. In this view, identity construction is conceptualized as a series of goal-directed actions over an extended period of time. Within that series of actions are the specific real-time identity processes defined as everyday activities as people engage together. These real-time processes operate as building blocks of identity construction. The Action-Project Method is a comprehensive protocol for conducting longitudinal qualitative research. Goal-directed actions are considered through three interacting dimensions: (a) levels of action, (b) perspectives on action, and (c) action systems. The Action-Project method is designed to collect data from the three perspectives on action: manifest action, internal processes, and social meaning. The description of the theory and method in relation to identity construction is followed by two case illustrations. The first case illustration demonstrates the use of the theory and method with two socially-related young adult participants. The second case illustration involves a counselor and a young adult participant.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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