MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208798645 · doi:10.1177/16094069211051941

Toward New Understandings of a Good Life for People Experiencing Impairment: An Art- and Community-Based Research Protocol

2021· article· en· W3208798645 on OpenAlexafffund
Roanne Thomas, Mary Egan, Wendy Gifford, Pamela Grassau, Judy King, Alysson Rheault, Josée Boulanger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyVisual impairmentDistressQualitative researchThe artsMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistSociologyPsychiatrySocial scienceVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost half of all Canadians live with sensory, cognitive, or physical impairment due to injury, illness, or ageing. Yet, research investigating the complex relationship between well-being and impairment is limited. Existing research has largely rendered invisible peoples’ experiences of a good life while living with impairment. In response, researchers are calling for interdisciplinary research that integrates new paradigms. Using innovative qualitative and visual research methods, our team will work with 24 women living with impairment as a result of cancer and/or its treatments to explore how creative practices can contribute to new understandings of a good life. Participants will be invited to complete mixed-media arts workshops during which they will create artwork representing their experiences of well-being while living with impairment. After the workshops, each participant will be asked to complete an individual interview about their experiences and their creative work. Next, a rough cut of a film will be produced from the workshop recordings and participants will be invited to provide feedback at a private screening. The research will culminate in a public screening of the film and an exhibit of participants’ work. Audience members (health professionals, students, participants, and the general public) will participate in a discussion following the screening and will be asked to complete a short survey about the event. This research will enhance public understandings of what it means to live well with impairment. In addition, the research will potentially impact health practices through querying dominant biomedical paradigms focused on curative approaches and distress.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.871
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207