Imagination: The Generation of Possibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The arrival of post-qualitative arts methodologies is unsurprisingly a critique of the metanarratives that have reduced the complexity of methodology to the instrumentalism of the methodical. Locating their work in the theoretically innovative post-qualitative, the authors affirm imagination as method. They detail how in the creative moment(s) of making there is not only a positive entanglement of the researchers’ relational constructions of knowing, knowledge, the self, and the world; but also a recognition of moral obligation. Because the content of what is imagined is both within and beyond shared perceptions, imagination as method can be detailed and precise; it can be coherent, informative, convincing, even compelling action, but it is always imaginative – and this is its promise for post-qualitative research. The authors suggest that a politics of the imagination turns away from the source of contention to generate new networks and systems of social relationships: it is not a resistance but a making. As a political imagination, research is the generative poiesis that emerges through and within specific acts of creation and generation. An example of a collaborative poetry writing practice is used to demonstrate imagination as method and to fractal the notions of value-creation, meaning-making, and imaginative play within the Canadian arts education research context.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 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 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".