<i>The Art of Writing Inquiry</i> edited by Lorri Neilsen, Ardra L. Cole & J. Gary Knowles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To suggest that arts-based inquiry is continually changing shape has become virtually a commonplace.However, the speed with which it is changing is still remarkable.A recent text that is particularly concerned with the evolution of arts-based inquiry into the processes and representational forms of educational research is The Art of Writing Inquiry, edited by Lorri Neilsen, Ardra L. Cole, and J. Gary Knowles.The collection of "writing as inquiry" and "inquiry into writing" provides examples of arts-informed accounts of educational research and powerfully represents various performative genres that inform pedagogies of higher education.The multitude of essays and excerpts of writing inquiry take metaphorical journeys and produce imaginative responses to complex interpretations of both processes and forms that are possible through arts-informed research.Readers of this book engage in a dialogical journey with the authors as they absorb the aesthetic representations of the arts-based research of these exceptional writers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".