MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085232609 · doi:10.1177/1077800411431553

Contemplation, Artful Writing

2012· article· en· W2085232609 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPosthumanist Ethics and Activism
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsContemplationAttunementAestheticsPoetryBuddhismPerceptionDharmaSociologyEpistemologyPsychologyLiteraturePhilosophyArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the author experiments with artful writing as a means of contemplating research with internationally educated female teachers. In doing so, she sits with, listens to, writes from particular moments of the research process. The author also composes found poems from words and phrases in the transcripts. Her intention is to dwell with particular artifacts, rather than analyze or interpret them according to a theoretical framework. In this work, she considers Deleuze and Guattari’s writing about art and also Shambhala/Buddhist Chögyam Trungpa’s teachings about Dharma art—all of whom contend that art is a form of bodily attunement to and awareness of the physical world through perception, the senses, sensation rather than a means of expressing the self and/or representing something. In a broad sense, the author is interested in how the practice of contemplation through artful writing might inform, transform the research process.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.205 · 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