“Thing Power”: Art, Assemblage, and Entanglement as Practitioner Action Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores an arts-based practitioner action research study that explores the artworks made by students from a Grade 11 History of Canada course in response to teaching and learning about the First World War. The practitioner considers the art-things (Bennett, 2015) of his students and the associated thing-power (Bennett, 2004) affordances. The work was informed by a rhizomatic methodology (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/2000) that illuminated insights arising from interpretation and analysis of the educative assemblage and its concrete and abstract constituents and forces. The practitioner’s action research was informed by newness, unexpectedness, and difference (Deleuze & Guattari, 1968/1994) drawn from engagements with the students’ art-things and artist statements, which in turn enriched the personal and professional knowledge and educative practices of the author as well as his students’ learning because of knowledge drawn from this inquiry.
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 | 0.060 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.122 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".