Interweaving Arts-Based, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: Showcasing Integration and Knowledge Translation Through Material and Narrative Reflection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arts-based research can exist as a stand-alone method, methodology, or reflect varying degrees of interweaving with other research approaches. With this in mind, this paper explores these relationships using examples from a recent arts-based research exhibition inclusive of various artistic works created to respond to, understand, and reflect nuanced experiences, narratives, contradictions, and diverse data sources in frailty and aging research. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective positioned between the arts and health sciences with specific attention to knowledge translation, the roles of object materiality, proximity to research data, and narrative reflection are considered, as are their implications for the creation and purpose of arts-based research more generally. The paper encourages researchers to consider how research data and arts-based research can continue to evolve and create deeply impactful and resonating findings.
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.
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 | 0.150 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it