‘If you can call it a poem’: toward a framework for the assessment of arts-based works
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of artistic forms as an alternative means for representing research findings is gaining acceptance in the research community. There are, however, important yet unresolved and even contentious issues arising from these new applications of the arts. These include concerns about the level of expertise required to effectively utilize the arts in research, the appropriateness of various methods of creating artworks and the desirability of identifying criteria for assessing arts-based contributions. Centring on the question of criteria for the creation and assessment of arts-based works, we note that there are, at present, few salient guidelines. Drawing upon our experience in conducting a pilot project employing arts-based methods of representing research findings, we propose a Guiding Arts-Based Research Assessment (GABRA) meta-framework for assessing the quality and effectiveness of utilizing the arts for knowledge dissemination. This overarching framework incorporates normative, substantive and performative aspects of arts-based methods of representing research findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it