Endless Open Heart: Collaborative Poetry and Image as Contemplative and Restorative Practice / Du fond du cœur : poésie concertée et imagerie pour une pratique contemplative et restauratrice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this article, we share how during a time of retreat from our academic careers we engaged in a shared contemplative arts process that included two practices, the first being renga, or linked verse poetry, and the second being Miksang, or contemplative photography. Through our particular collaboration, we sought to co-create a space where healthy habits of mind and open-hearted awareness were nurtured through practices of spaciousness, restfulness, curiosity, and compassion. In this way, we manifested a process that has been restorative for ourselves and that is potentially helpful for other artists, teachers and researchers.Keywords: poetry; photography; contemplative arts; collaboration; healing.Résumé : Nous racontons dans cet article comment nous nous sommes, en retrait temporaire de nos activités professionnelles, impliqués dans un processus concerté d’art contemplatif impliquant deux pratiques, à savoir le renga, sorte de poésie collaborative, et le Miksang, ou photographie contemplative. Nous avons voulu, dans le cadre de cette collaboration spéciale, co-créer un environnement favorisant de saines habitudes intellectuelles et la bienveillance en y intégrant grandeur, détente, curiosité et compassion. Nous avons ainsi amorcé un processus restauratif pour nous et potentiellement utile à d’autres artistes, enseignants et chercheurs.Mots-clés : poésie, photographie, arts contemplatifs, photographie, collaboration, guérison.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".