Considering Performativity as Methodology and Phenomena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performativity is both a methodology and in its complexity, phenomena. Understanding the concept, the evolution of the term and how performativity can open spaces for inquiry adds to knowledge about interprofessional healthcare teams. Distinguishing between performance and performativity is essential. In this article, we examine methodological aspects of performativity through the use of forum theater. Dialogue from a performance-based inquiry workshop with healthcare team members provides a way to discuss performative methodology. The workshop was built upon recurrent characteristics of interprofessionalism in healthcare teams seen in conversational interviews with healthcare practitioner participants. Performativity provides a way to explore the relational work in interprofessional team practices. The methodological messiness of performative inquiry is discussed. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1402112
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 | 0.175 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.149 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".