Discovering How to Do Reflexivity and Self-Reflexivity: A Longitudinal Empirical Research Findings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflexivity is known to be a mental process where a person takes distance to oneself to analyze and take a critical perspective over own feelings, actions and intentions in order to realign own practice. Reflexivity is therefore a form of metacognitive brain functionality reaching a state of mind’s sense of acute awareness. The reflexivity’s functionality has been recognized as valuable to improve professional practices. The main gap in research and literature is to explicate how to do reflexivity and most of all, how to apply it to all aspects of human life toward self-actualization. This research aims at answering at: How to Do reflexivity and Self-Reflexivity? To answer this question a 17 year-long longitudinal Action-Research investigations reveals how to learn and practice reflexivity. This paper also reveals how reflexivity can be applied to aim at one’s well-being and self-actualization. The discussion addresses the long-term impact of practicing reflexivity coupled with mindfulness as an ability to reach self-liberation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it