The Gift of Wit(h)nessing Transitional Moments Through a Contemplative Arts Co-Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we offer glimpses of a contemplative arts co-inquiry that we recently undertook: our primary purpose was to wit(h)ness one another as we reimagine our lives and work. Briefly, we are white, Canadian-born female professors of European settler heritage living on the traditional lands of the Indigenous peoples of Treaties 6 and 7, and Metis Region 3 and 4, who have been living in the transitional spaces of leaving the academy for the past two years. We share a deep personal and social commitment to engaging with contemplative arts practices in relational ways in our daily lives, as well as in our teaching and research. We became interested in wit(h)nessing one another through a co-inquiry that offered the opportunity for us to explore more deeply the transitional spaces we now occupy—and to foreground the inter-relational healing aspects of the process, both personally and in relation to the potentialities
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.121 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".