MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582880731 · doi:10.1177/1077800415581888

On the Education of Art-Based Researchers

2015· article· en· W1582880731 on OpenAlexaff
Dónal O’Donoghue

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyField (mathematics)Reading (process)EpistemologyAestheticsLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article engages in a prosthetic reading of Charles Garoian’s definition of art-based research—prosthetic insofar as it connects his definition with the ideas of others, to intellectual traditions not immediately recognized as his—in an effort to consider how “newcomers” to the field of art-based research might be welcomed and prepared to act as researchers. Arguing that art researchers and scholars have a collective responsibility to welcome “newcomers” to the field, acquaint them with the possibilities of a form and practice that they seem to care deeply about, without dictating what “newcomers” ought to do, the article explores how Garoian’s definition constructs art-based research as a place from which to act, to inquire generously, to make good judgments, and to give accounts of others in ethical ways.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.579
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.067 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207