MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970934164 · doi:10.1108/qrj-02-2019-0023

The Supermodel Astronaut Challenge: traversing frames of mind

2019· article· en· W2970934164 on OpenAlexaff
Leanne Glasser, Emily Young, Pauline Sameshima

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyAestheticsPledgePedagogyLawPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The Supermodel Astronaut (SMA) Challenge began with a group of women in a graduate class who joined together to take the pledge “I Am Enough.” The goals of the pledge are to practice positive affirmative actions of self-acceptance, self-grace, self-improvement and positive encouragement of oneself and others. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach The SMA Challenge involves an online video pledge to encourage women and girls to demonstrate their opposition to the promotion of singular ideals of body perpetuated through media. Various individuals and groups have created music videos titled SMA to the soundtrack created by Ellen Tift (the originator of the project). Findings Here, framed by Daignault’s (1983) theories on curriculum construction, the authors critically reflect on their support of the idea of the video, but also their apprehension and insecurities in participating in the video production. Originality/value From reflections, writings and dialogic discussions, they determined five embodied frames of mind that supported them in traversing the liminal space of new learning: imagining the possible, learning in doing, settling in vulnerability, journeying through empowerment and heightening self-reflection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.047
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.222 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research JournalSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207