Arts-Informed Research Dissemination in the Health Sciences
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
Arts-informed dissemination of health care research is an emerging field of scholarship. Our team chose to use the arts as a means to disseminate findings from a study about patients’ experiences of open-heart surgery and recovery. We transformed patients’ stories, gathered through interviews and journal writings, into poetry and photographic imagery and displayed this within a 1,739 ft 2 art installation titled “The 7,024th Patient.” Our intention was to use the arts as dissemination method that could convey the sentiments and perspectives of patients. To evaluate this novel method of dissemination in the health sciences, we conducted a study to analyze its effect on viewers. We used a narrative methodology with a multimodal theoretical lens. Thirty-four individuals participated in either an individual interview or a focus group. In addition, more than 200 anonymous, written comments were generated at research stations placed throughout the installation. In this article, we present the findings. Participants found this art installation of poetry and imagery to be a valid, meaningful, and authentic representation of patients’ experiences. They also described being immersed into patients’ journeys and evoking self-reflection. Based on this research, arts-informed dissemination is a powerful medium to report findings. Our work provides empirical evidence that expands the different ways to distribute research in the health and social sciences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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