WALKING AND DWELLING: MAKING A DAILY PROVOCATION, BUILDING A COMMUNAL PLACE AND BECOMING AN ARTIST IN RESIDENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This visual essay incorporates the researcher’s own a/r/tographical living inquiry into her daily walk. Through her daily walking experience, the researcher created different provocations in order to answer the question. “How might it be possible to make time to experience being in the moment and dwelling with the natural materials whilst walking?” This research took the form of a selfstudy in which she reflected on her own daily walking and provocation journal. The researcher used two forms of arts-based research methodology; “a/r/tography as living inquiries” and “aesthetic-based research (ARB) as pedagogy”. In order to find answers to the research question, the researcher committed herself to being and dwelling, in inquiries, and to allow herself to maintain an open mind. Through this living inquiry, the researcher learned how an act of “commitment” (ongoing living inquiry) and “contiguity” helped her to understand the importance of “the relationship between art and graphy, that is between the art form and writing within or about the phenomenon”. This relational inquiry enabled her to locate herself “in the space of the inbetween to create self- sustaining interrelating identities that inform, enhance, evoke and/or provoke one another” and to become an A/r/tographer. In conclusion, this research impressed upon her the profound value of living inquiries and being in lived experiences because it has given her an awareness of the impact of the process rather than the outcomes
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".