Immersion, Embodiment, and Imagination: Moving Beyond an Aesthetic of Objectivity in Research-Informed Performance in Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing numbers of qualitative health researchers of diverse disciplinary backgrounds are experimenting with various forms of performance (e.g., film, live theater, dance) as innovative approaches to engage broader communities in complex and critical ways with research. Despite this emerging alliance between performance and research, much of research-informed performance work is informed by an "aesthetic of objectivity," which assumes a linear trajectory between research findings and performance, and minimizes the relevance of aesthetic interpretation, which we argue is fundamental to achieving critical research-informed performative work. To move beyond this aesthetic of objectivity, we will explore our development of a research-informed film, "Fit for Dialysis." We argue that embracing the role of aesthetics, imagination, and embodiment more fully is essential to achieving the full interactive, educational, and emancipatory potential of the alliance between performance and research. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1502290
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.125 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.184 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".