Re-conceptualizing ‘impact’ in art-based health research
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
Abstract This article explores the notion of ‘impact’ in art-based health research (ABHR), and how we might re-conceptualize it through the kind of work ABHR ‘does’ in generating and disseminating knowledge. We explore ‘impact’ from a critical qualitative perspective, leveraging findings from a study based on interviews with ABHR researchers/artists/trainees. We focus on their reflections related to ‘impact’, and informed by our own experiences of producing/evaluating ABHR in diverse genres. We argue for a conceptualization of impact that moves beyond an exclusive positivist and biomedical concern with whether certain ABHR ‘interventions’ (defined here as processes/products of an ABHR study) work in generalizable ways, to one that focuses on context as well as processes of development, implementation and engagement. How will we know if a particular ABHR project ‘worked’? What kinds of ‘work’ do the products of ABHR do? How might we, or should we, tease out ‘process’ from ‘product’? In exploring these questions, we problematize what is meant by ‘impact’ and what we can expect from the knowledge generated and its translation via varied artistic genres.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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