MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139471612 · doi:10.1177/1077800413513738

When Qualitative Research Meets Theater

2014· article· en· W2139471612 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaOffice of International Science and EngineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEthnographyResearch designSociologyQualitative researchField (mathematics)Engineering ethicsWork (physics)Field researchAestheticsEngineeringSocial scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we describe three areas of design that need to be considered when conceptualizing a performed ethnography/research-informed theater project in the field of education: research design, aesthetic design, and pedagogical design. We present 30 questions that performed ethnographers and research-informed theater artists might ask ourselves when we conceptualize our projects. We then provide a discussion of four recent projects that engage with the questions presented and conclude by arguing that (a) research design and aesthetic design interact with and feed into each other and (b) research and aesthetic decisions impact the pedagogical work our projects do.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.457
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.072 · 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