Black Men Writing, Reflecting, and Discovering Self: Personal Narrative Essays of College-aged African American Men at an All-male Historically Black College or University (HBCU)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal narratives are studied in many disciplines, but theoretical analysis of the personal narrative in composition classes has lagged behind the research. This qualitative study examines the personal narratives of thirty Black college-aged men. This study presents the feelings and thoughts of Black males through their personal stories and perspectives; in the study, they detail their life experiences. The narratives were analyzed for elements of narrative discourse, which include (1) Thesis; (2) Transitions; (3) Use and Evaluation of Sources; (4) Audience, Tone, and Rhetorical Appeals; (5) Organization; (6) Claims, Warrants, and Support; (7)Paraphrases, Direct Quotes, and Summary; (8) In-text Citations and Works Cited Page; (9) Style and Syntax; and (10) Mechanics (see scoring procedures). Each narrative was analyzed according to the criteria described in the Personal Narrative Rubric; the number of elements was counted for each category. The researcher recommends additional narrative studies of Black men in different age groups, educational backgrounds, social and economic levels, and geographical regions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".