Hybrid health research: Assembling an integrated arts/science methodological framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within the effort to create a form of enquiry that is both, and neither, art and science, we explore methodologies at the intersection of these activities. The methodologies under study are grounded in embodied contemporary philosophical writings – the work of Gibson, Deleuze and Guattari and Whitehead have drawn our particular interest. Using examples drawn from projects undertaken over recent years, we illustrate how these philosophies can be used to develop a formal methodological framework. We then go on to investigate to what extent the elements that form this framework are also found in a corpus of texts obtained from interviews with researchers and students working in arts-based health research. The results, which largely confirm the lessons drawn, suggest that the proposed framework may have broader generality.
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 | 0.193 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".