Personal illness experience of my adolescent self: a narrative inquiry self-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on Dewey’s philosophy of experience, our personal and professional lived experiences are mutually informing. Thus, personal illness experiences may impact how we engage in professional roles. In this self-study, using Connelly and Clandinin’s Narrative Inquiry, I explore my experience of an eating disorder as an adolescent, and how this experience informs my nursing practice today. I crafted stories of my illness experience often using poetic prose. I analyzed these using the three levels of justification (personal, practical, social) through the theoretical lens of Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development. Four narrative threads (impulsivity: response to losing control, lack of autonomy, liminality, lack of meaningful relationships) emerged and coalesced into three narrative patterns (control, belonging, identity). This self-study provides healthcare professionals an understanding of the impact a stigmatized illness may have on one’s professional role. My intention is to inspire others to enter their own inquiry into their experiences of illness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".