MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917813426 · doi:10.1177/1609406918804955

Malleable Methodologies: Sculpting and Imagination in Embodied Health Research

2019· article· en· W2917813426 on OpenAlexafffund
Debra Kriger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionSubjectivityMalleabilitySociologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health research is complex, often asking questions that have uncertain, indefinite, or inarticulate answers. Embodied health research, which incorporates subjectivity and social relationships centered on the body, adds further complexity. There exist several calls for embodied research methodology, and it is now important to explore aligning methods and further develop embodied health research methodology. Using artistic and interview data from the Beyond the Present: Risk and Body Stigma in Public Health project, this article argues that imagination is a useful methodology and sculpting a fruitful method to draw out health stories. Sculpting and imagination allow material and conceptual malleability and are valuable in addressing complexity and uncertainty in critical qualitative health research.

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 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)0.294
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2940.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.987
GPT teacher head0.870
Teacher spread0.117 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207