The Interview-Event-Agencement as Creative Movement and Methodological Disruption
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
In her article “Towards a Politics of Immediation,” Erin Manning (2019a) writes about the process of “immediation, the withness of time, of body in the making” (p. 1) that bodies subjectivity through the interstitial experience of/in the event. Drawing from Manning’s movement-oriented philosophy, and thinking-with her concepts of immediation, agencement, interval, and memory of the future, I invite alternate visualizations of interviewing as a research method through my study with international graduate students in a TESOL program at a Canadian university. By shifting focus from human-centred researcher intentionality and pre-determined research tools of the interviewing method, to the entangled human and non-human affective agencies of the interview-participant-voice-recorder-assemblage, I offer possibilities for experiencing the interview-event as an affective ecological attunement. Manning’s concepts also create interferences with existing institutional and TESOL representations and discourses, where multilingual students are often interpellated into rigid identity constructions and difference is seen as deficiency.
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 | 0.226 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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