Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses several ethical dilemmas with which the author struggled in doing and reflecting on her doctoral research. She engaged a group of high school drama students, from a rural, mainly Aboriginal community, in a Popular Theater project. Titled Life in the Sticks, the project was based on students’ initial claim that their issues were determined by their rural environment. Drawing on traditions in participatory research and performance ethnography, performance helped them reexamine aspects of their lived experiences, including those that deem them “at risk.” The author's ethical entanglements included difficulties in representing and interpreting the resulting participatory research, problems surrounding the label “at risk,” challenges of doing Popular Theater in school, and concerns about the absence of Aboriginal identity/ issues in the students’ performances. The author drew on a feminist ethics of care and performance ethics to make her way through the tangles that emerged.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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; 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".