MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406406320 · doi:10.1177/19394225241312441

Learning to Share Gendered Military Experiences: An Autoethnographic Exploration of Expressive Writing in Transforming Military Cultures

2025· article· en· W4406406320 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Taber

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoethnographyPsychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the analytic-evocative autoethnographic exploration of my learning experiences planning for, facilitating, participating in, and reflecting on a series of expressive writing workshops for women-identifying Canadians who have served in the military. I explore how the intersection of expressive writing, adult education, and feminist antimilitarism can inform understandings of individual military service, the collective institution of the military, and transforming military cultures. I detail my methodology of autoethnography, including a discussion of method and analysis, which demonstrates how the core elements of expressive writing and autoethnography are at odds with those of military cultures. For these reasons, expressive writing and autoethnography hold great potential for transforming military cultures, which is why I chose to combine these creative forms of writing and exploration in my research. I explain my thematic findings of: reclaiming military identity, memories, and story through imagination; and, building community through story-telling inspired by shared gendered military experiences. I present a found poem created from my writing during the workshop series that emerged from my thematic findings. I conclude with implications for adult education and autoethnographers in the context of working toward transforming military cultures.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource DevelopmentSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207