Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment in aesthetic fields presents a myriad of challenges in the higher education environment. This paper uses a metaphorical representation to explore the role of assessors within aesthetic assessment settings in higher education. It begins with a discussion of aesthetic fields and an exploration of the role of assessment in this area. Following this, the relationship between teachers and learners in aesthetic assessment settings is explored, as are some of the tensions that accompany assessment in aesthetic fields. This paper reports on a narrative and ethnographic study that explores the role of assessors in the context of aesthetically rich assessment tasks. The study, which uses five participants teaching in higher education settings, arrives at a metaphor which likens the assessors’ role to that of an artistic curator or art critic. The students’ place within that metaphor is also explored. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the nature of assessment in aesthetic fields and areas for further investigation identified.
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 | 0.030 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".