Reflexivity and Relational Spaces: Experiences of Conducting a Narrative Inquiry Study With Emerging Adult Women Living With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clandinin and Connelly's narrative inquiry methodology was used to understand the lived and told stories of two emerging adult women (aged 18-29) living with chronic pain. The aim of this paper is to share the experiences of the first author-a graduate student and novice researcher-of creating relational spaces with emerging adult women living with chronic pain, and the experience of co-creating knowledge through the methodological lens of narrative inquiry. There are 12 qualitative touchstones that narrative inquirers attend to when using narrative inquiry, and we present the experiences of a novice narrative inquirer in relation to selected touchstones. Narrative inquiry can greatly contribute to nursing knowledge, and implications for nursing practice and research are discussed.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".