MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using story-based methodologies to explore physics identities: How do moments add up to a life in physics?

2023· article· en· W4385289168 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Physics Education Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsTimelineContext (archaeology)NarrativeInterviewPhysics educationNarrative inquiryPhysicsMathematics educationSociologyPsychologyLiteratureMathematicsHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Qualitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination.] This article details methodologies employed to enable sharing and coconstructing the stories of three women’s lives in physics. The first case explores the usefulness of timeline interviewing, where participants narrate episodes that are coconstructed with the researcher as meaningful over time. We illustrate this method in the case of a mature student in Sweden from a working-class background who shared moments that added up to a life outside of physics and then a sharp turn into physics later in life. The second case explores life-history interviewing using a narrative-inquiry approach and deep relationship building which enabled the coconstruction of stories of experiences over time. These moments are coconstructed with the researcher and analyzed using an intersectionality lens to yield a story depicting the transnational experiences of a woman of color moving across various European contexts into the North American physics context. The final case is of a first-generation Canadian woman of color who shared her navigations of in and out of school physics via a method known as the “Rivers of Life.” Using this method, the participant narrates their experiences with physics as a river, using metaphorical tools like rafts, rocks, rapids, tributaries to discuss various moments described as twists and turns over time that together amount to a life in physics. We discuss the value of different approaches to coconstructing narratives with participants and, in particular, the need for this kind of research in physics contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.849
GPT teacher head0.663
Teacher spread0.186 · 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