Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Expressive Arts Education and Therapy the reader follows the creation of art-making in tandem with the unfolding of sense-making. A dance theatre lab is the stage for exploration where what was discovered was phenomenologically and collaboratively reflected upon, the participatory nature of the creative work pouring into the research methodology. Creative Process-based Research efficacy is contingent upon the interaction of three poles – the creator, the product and an experience of the internal/external creative process of the creator. All three perspectives comprise the dynamics required of this research methodology in order to understand what is occurring in these three distinct and essential elements of the creative process. What results is an experience of cohesion that consciously describes this interplay. The author outlines his influences that contributed to both the art-making and sense-making over the seven year research project. His work in experimental theatre in New York, as an educator with The European Graduate School in Switzerland and his studies with philosopher John de Ruiter in Canada are integrated into the world of research in the field of expressive arts. The visceral component of creating clarity is uncovered and articulated. This book inspires new ways of thinking about participatory, collaborative, arts-centered research where the skill of exposing the artist/researcher's modus operandi for making art and making sense is named in a myriad of ways that call upon the intellect as well as the artist's intuitive sense of what to focus on and its relevance to education, therapy and global health.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".