MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527215696 · doi:10.1002/crq.21086

What Moves Us: Dance and Neuroscience Implications for Conflict Approaches

2013· article· en· W1527215696 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

VenueConflict Resolution Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionDanceEmpathyGrassrootsPsychologyCognitive scienceCognitionResource (disambiguation)Field (mathematics)SociologyCognitive psychologyEpistemologyNeuroscienceSocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite its worldwide use in grassroots conflict approaches, dance, and the body more generally, remain largely unaddressed within conflict theory and conventional practice. We argue that the body is an essential focus of conflict theory and a ready resource for conflict practice by exploring the implications of compelling discoveries within the field of neuroscience. Examining the embodied dimensions of cognition, emotion, and memory, the physical roots of empathy, and the relationship of right‐ and left‐brain processes to conflict, we outline neuroscientific underpinnings of dance‐based approaches to conflict and the range of creative tools that arises from its use.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.200 · 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