Employing the Arts in Research as an Analytical Tool and Dissemination Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process to knowing entails perpetual curiosity as well as wearied surrender in which one’s understandings transform. This philosophy describes the approach that our team took to research, interpret and exhibit patients’ narratives of open-heart surgery in “The 7,024th Patient” project – an arts-informed, narrative study that resulted in an installation that is 1,739 square feet in area and over 9 feet in height. With the intention to physically and emotionally engage viewers, patients’ stories were aesthetically translated into an installation of poetry and photography that was configured as a winding, labryinth-like path. In this article, we recount the journey of creating “The 7,024th Patient” exhibition illustrating the employment of the arts as a tool in research for acquiring understanding. In order to vividly highlight our journey, poetic excerpts and photographic images from the installation are embedded.
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 | 0.230 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".