Risky methodologies and humble knowledges: a reflection on arts-based research for disabled and chronically Ill youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The socio-materiality of risk in sport, exercise, and health has greatly advanced an understanding of the entanglement of embodiment and the social realm, opening up discussions about bodies and technologies as well as bodies and work. The socio-materiality of risk has also facilitated a discussion on both the embodied and material components of risk. In this paper, however, we consider ‘risky methodologies’ to advance discussions on the socio-materiality of risk. We unpack arts-based methodologies as one methodological platform in which bodies and the social realm are entangled and mutually constitutive of one another. Specifically, we show how arts-based research is grounded in the material and the social because it facilitates the development of ambiguous, fluid, ethereal, affective, impressionist, uncertain, and aesthetic knowledges, while, at the same time, advancing scholarship on social justice and injustice. We also propose that ABR is a humble knowledge that stands in contrast to the authority of certain academic disciplines. We weave stories, art, and narratives from empirical data sets to illuminate our discussion and promote critical methodological dialogue and reflection.
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 | 0.065 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.139 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".