MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three Ethical Issues in Narrative Research of Women Coaches’ Lifelong Learning

2015· article· en· W787002851 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeNarrative inquiryEthical issuesLifelong learningPsychologyEngineering ethicsQualitative researchResearch ethicsSociologyPedagogySocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to reflect upon ethical issues in conducting narrative research beyond what may be considered in Research Ethics Board applications. Ethical issues were identified in a dissertation study that utilized a narrative research approach to explore the process of lifelong learning for five women coaches. Using journal reflections and participant and researcher conversations, three ethical issues are discussed. These issues arose during the process of collecting narratives from participants and in creating narrative analyses of the data. While there exists a broad range of views on narratives, all narrative researchers can benefit from reflecting on ethical issues within their research.

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.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.586
GPT teacher head0.667
Teacher spread0.081 · 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