Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenomenology & Practice is halfway through its fifth year as a scholarly, open access journal.Our aim has been-and continues to be-to share phenomenological insights published in experientially-oriented and unconventional papers by remaining open to innovative contributions.Clearly, the journal is on its way to earning a niche as one of few international journals focusing on a wide range of practices within a hermeneuticalphenomenological-methodological scope.With this issue, we introduce a dialogical process in our book reviews.As before, book reviews are written in a personal, essay style; but in this, and future issues when appropriate, the reviewer's essay will be responded to by the author of the book.Furthermore, beginning in 2011, we intend to publish two issues of Phenomenology & Practice a year.Upcoming publications include two special issues that focus on the practice of pedagogy and on experiential questions related to the health-oriented disciplines.Before proceeding to the presentation of the eight diverse articles of P&P's fifth issue, I would like to take a detour to a theme that has stayed with me as I embarked on the extensive and meticulous editorial work with the current papers.These papers are the products of excellent scholars and are unique works that have come into a distinct phenomenologicalhermeneutical form during months of reconsideration, adjustment, revision, and change.Through processes of poetic writing and re-writing, each of the papers-following special threads of diverse lived experience-has reached a state of a phenomenological representation of the lived world.Despite or perhaps due to their diversity, I believe the authors would agree with me when I claim that these papers are not 'completed' (in the absolute meaning of the term).The papers continue to pose questions, rather than give answers, and they will continue to radically confront both author and reader with issues that are by no means resolved.The authors, as well as the readers, keep grappling with the questions at hand, and in doing so, new poetic papers may be created in their wake.But what do we mean when we talk about poetic writing in hermeneutic phenomenology?
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.027 |
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".