Enhancing equity in arts-based research engagement: Methodological considerations from a policy-oriented community-development study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides reflexive account of an arts-based communication tool used for a community development project in Manitoba, Canada. Drawing upon an intersectional perspective of social, health, and environmental inequalities, the multi-phase engagement involved citizens (n = 17; n = 9) as well as global policymakers (n = 6) in healthy cities, age-friendly cities, and sustainable city policy arenas. A visual graphic was employed to foster bidirectional dialogue between concerned local residents and global policymakers, forming the backbone of a community engagement strategy. Reflective analysis demonstrates how art can be mobilized toward reducing inequalities while notable challenges remain—including omission of highly-sidelined perspectives amidst complex interdisciplinarity; potential reductionism leading to manufactured consent; and considerations of communities inherently excluded in a qualitative, arts-based community engagement. The impacts of art on power hierarchies, emotion, project efficiency, and privilege are reviewed, with the objective of supporting more inclusive arts-based communications in future research.
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 | 0.473 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".