MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025010347 · doi:10.1177/0002764202045008011

Participatory Art Research

2002· article· en· W2025010347 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsCégep Marie-Victorin
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningParticipatory action researchEthnographySociologyAction researchConsciousnessCritical consciousnessIdentity (music)Citizen journalismDiversity (politics)Expression (computer science)Process (computing)PsychologyAestheticsPedagogyAnthropologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participatory art research involves the process of research/action (art production) and reflection while seeking solutions to collective educational problems expressed, in this case, by a group of postsecondary Inuit students studying in Montreal, Quebec. The findings of the research, expressed through a critical ethnographical account, confirm that art used in this way can be a transformative, facilitating tool for stimulating relational knowledge and critical consciousness, making the research process a shared experience of collaboration and growth for all involved. The diversity expressed through this universal channel, artistic expression, becomes rich and illuminating and stimulates understanding about both identity and culture.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.887
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.161 · 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