Bibliographic record
Abstract
My research is a creative text of lived experiences, which will highlight unique thought processes, in that they are my own. I have studied and reacted to some of the ideas of scholars of phenomenology, feminist thought, post-modern and structuralist ideas, literary and curriculum theory, and to the techniques of creative writers whose work I admire. It includes vignettes or snapshots of happenings captured in prose or in my recent attempts at poetry. The truth is that I have always wanted to be a writer, and that I have always written, but not for publication. In Part One of “The Rustle of Language” Barthes (1986) discusses the idea that the verb "to write" is intransitive; it is something a writer does. I have written in journals, in letters, in daybooks, in essays and in notes to myself on my readings, and I can see change. As Barthes says, "the one who writes I is not the same as the I read by you" (p. 17), and it is very different from the “I” writing now, of the past. I include all seasons of my life using the introductory poems as an overview, as an introduction to how I see myself now as I must have been then. My love for ballet and for the video I have of the National Ballet of Canada dancing The Four Seasons to Vivaldi’s score have been my inspiration. I expect that as I proceed, I shall add some references and delete others. As in all creative writing, it is difficult to tell exactly where my research and writing will take me. At this time I would like to concentrate on just one basic idea, which has been stated succinctly by van Manen (2002) in Phenomenology Online when he says, "phenomenological inquiry-writing is based on the idea that no text is ever perfect, no interpretation is ever complete, no explication of meaning is ever final, no insight is beyond challenge" (p. 1).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".