MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238153471 · doi:10.4018/9781591405566.ch065

Narrative Inquiry and Communities of Practice

2011· book-chapter· en· W4238153471 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gordon Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeQualitative researchNarrative inquiryQualitative analysisEngineering ethicsPsychologySociologyEngineeringSocial scienceLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kind of research conducted by communities of practice may be related to preliminary investigations of subjects that may not have been extensively investigated in the past. Alternatively, communities of practice may be formed to expand previous investigations into relatively under-researched areas. In either case the approach to conducting these preliminary investigations may be qualitative in nature. An approach that facilitates qualitative investigations is Narrative Inquiry. Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.054
Scholarly communication0.0170.019
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207