Intra‐spective Event‐encounters in Museums: A Pedagogic Practice Among Community Art Educators in Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reflects understandings of artful encounters in relation to ecologies of practice and walking with public art. Introduced as a pedagogic inquiry among art education students training to become teachers in community settings, meaningful event‐encounters transpired while walking with the museum. Navigating spaces of becoming‐with between body‐object‐environment encouraged relational positions: self as a/r/tographer, self in relation to artworks, self in relation to a museum space and self in relation to co‐participants. Visual, spoken and written responses to artworks were anchored in guiding themes and in an awareness of the artist's creative process. The resultant perceptions are defined in this case as introspective, extrospective and what may be described as intra‐spective (reflecting the experience of collaborative exploration). Participant data revealed that the exchange of interpretation becomes a meaningful provocation to one's own assumptions about an artwork. Moreover, intra‐spective practice fostered a genuine curiosity about others through the sharing of perspectives in ways that suggest such inquiry offers a pedagogic opening by enhancing focus, stimulating curiosity, and mindfully engaging reflective, affective and reflexive dispositions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".