MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099893786

Page i WE TAKE FROM IT WHAT WE NEED: A PORTRAITURE APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING A SOCIAL MOVEMENT THROUGH THE POWER OF STORY AND STORYTELLING LEADERSHIP

2006· article· en· W7099893786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Diseases and Immunity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingNarrativeMeaning (existential)Power (physics)PolyphonyMovement (music)Subject (documents)Object (grammar)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined a social movement through the power of story and storytelling and its influence on behavior from a purposeful sampling of individuals who heard the story of Joan Southgate’s journey. Ms. Southgate, a 73-year-old African-American, walked the 519 miles of the underground-railroad across Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and into Canada. In one sense, this grand narrative of the underground-railroad is a never-ending story but one that is subject to change with each re-telling and/or unveiling of polyphonic microstories. Stories, as no other spoken communication tool, have the ability to capture emotion and reason, hearts and minds. While storytelling is thought to be a most powerful means of communicating, very little scholarly work has been written about its use as a tool for leadership and leaders. The purpose of this study was to look at what meaning could be derived from understanding the connection between storytelling and leadership. Stories were collected and interpreted for their meaning using a social science portraiture approach, which emphasizes and respects the voice of the people being

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0100.014
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiver Diseases and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207