“The Story is My Life”: Bridging Symbol to Self in a Novel Creative and Reflective Writing Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article describes the development and testing of a novel creative and reflective writing task. Following the rationale of sand-tray and play therapies, participants were asked to meaningfully incorporate four objects from a randomly generated matrix of options into a creative short story. They then composed a second story that incorporated four possessions from home associated with important memories. Afterwards, participants produced interpretive statements or reflections on what the stories meant to them. An exploratory qualitative study was conducted based on narrative data from 15 young adult participants in Canada. Our goals were to: (a) explore the extent to which object familiarity was associated with qualitative differences in stories and interpretations, and (b) investigate for connections between features of participants’ stories and depth of interpretation. Analysis of creative stories resulted in a scheme of four response categories with ten subcategories. Participants’ interpretations of their own stories were coded based on self-described sources of inspiration, such as critical life episodes or popular media. Results are accompanied with excerpts of participants’ stories and reflections, and percentage comparisons are reported. Findings are presented in dialogue with established interpretive frameworks originating in depth psychology. Manipulation of object familiarity resulted in demonstrable differences at the levels of word length, point of view, narrative forms and features, self-disclosure, and reflection. Use of familiar objects in such a task appears to be a largely untapped resource that shows promise as a route to insight.
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 | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".