MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385491040 · doi:10.7202/1102410ar

The Triadic Contours of Ethics in Practice-Based and Interdisciplinary Research

2023· article· en· W4385491040 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pil Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenuePerformance Matters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituational ethicsSociologyThe artsTriad (sociology)Ethical codeResearch ethicsPsychologyEngineering ethicsSocial psychologyVisual artsSocial scienceArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this forum article, I begin to contour the triad of partly overlapping ethical spheres that I operate within when crossing practice-based and empirical research in the performing arts. I also begin to suggest a few approaches that may help me and others navigate these spheres. The ethical spheres I contour are (1) situational and relational ethics; (2) equity, diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility (EDIA); and (3) institutional ethics protocols. This triad is, furthermore, considered with reference to an ethically complex research program titled “strengths-based dramaturgies of accessibility in the performing arts.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0240.179
Scholarly communication0.0400.043
Open science0.0030.030
Research integrity0.0100.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerformance MattersSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207