MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320066921 · doi:10.1521/jsyt.2022.41.3.56

Hermeneutic Inquiry: A Research Approach for Postmodern Therapists

2022· article· en· W4320066921 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jeff Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systemic Therapies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyHermeneuticsHermeneutic phenomenologyPostmodern theatreSociologyPsychologyPsychotherapistPhilosophyLived experienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces hermeneutic philosophy and inquiry to postmodern therapists. Hermeneutic inquiry is an approach to research that posits that all understanding is interpretation, and interpretation is constructed in language. It shares a common view of language with postmodern therapies, and therefore is likely to be a congenial and accessible approach to research for postmodern therapists. This paper describes one example of hermeneutic inquiry and discusses some practical implications of a hermeneutic approach to inquiry.

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.084
Scholarly communication0.0220.026
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systemic TherapiesSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207