A tale of two widows: investigating meaning-making and identity development through writing in the face of grief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we explore the grieving-through-writing process of two researchers who dialogue about spousal loss. Drawing on the idea that bereavement requires meaning-making, we engage in an interview-style conversation about how (1) we each made sense of our spouse's death, (2) experienced Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG) as described by Calhoun and Tedeschi [(2006). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice. Routledge], and (c) underwent identity change. Through a “researcher as practitioner” lens, we conceptualise identity change using Dialogical Self Theory and engage in writing as a therapeutic narrative re-storying process. We note that each of us differed with regards to when we wrote about our loss. The work is intended to contribute to the grief literature and can support counselling and writing-for-wellbeing practices..
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".