« Vieillissement réussi », danse et Fitbit : une exploration créative critique du corps vieillissant surveillé en mouvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume : Cet article presente un processus de recherche-creation explorant les enjeux liant corps vieillissants, technologies et normativites culturelles. Plus precisement, cet article s’attarde au potentiel critique et aux reflexions methodologiques, theoriques et creatives qui prennent forme au cœur d’un projet de creation mariant danse et technologie de suivi en continu ( self-tracking ) de type Fitbit. Je presente d’abord brievement le projet de creation qui consiste en l’elaboration d’une choregraphie dansee, par une femme choregraphe et danseuse vieillissante, inspiree de son experience de self-tracking . Je presente ensuite les elements empiriques et analytiques qui ont emerge en cours de processus, et qui auront alimente a la fois la creation et la recherche, tous deux critiques. En accord avec la demarche inspiree des methodes de la recherche-creation, je presente ces elements dans un meme mouvement, selon leur mode d’emergence en cours de processus. Je termine par un retour sur le potentiel critique du projet, tant dans son developpement que dans ses suites. Abstract: This paper presents a research-creation process exploring issues linking aging bodies, technologies and cultural normativities. More precisely, this article focuses on the critical potential as well as on the methodological, theoretical and creative dimensions embedded in and emerging through the development of a creative project which combines dance and Fitbit self-tracking technology. First, I briefly present the creation project which consists in the elaboration of a dance choreography by an aging woman, choreographer and dancer. The choreography is inspired by her experience of self-tracking. I then present empirical and analytical elements that have emerged throughout the process, that have informed the creation and the research, both critical. In accordance with the process inspired by research-creation methods, I present these elements in a same movement, along with their modes of emergence throughout the process. I conclude by presenting the critical potential of this project, embedded in its development as much as in its follow-ups.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".