Ethnography as Playful Relational Encounter: Collaboration and Translation between Film and Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This co-authored paper presents a PhD student in anthropology and his primary interlocutor describing collaborative filmmaking as a space ethnographic encounter. They explore how their “ethnographic B movie” (Epp 2024) approach afforded a novel opportunity to perform subjectivity beyond norms of researcher and interlocutor relations and representation. The article was inspired by discussions around Epp’s recent conference presentation about the challenges of representing Ross between film and dissertation writing. An engagement with that presentation, situated within Nicholas Bourriaud’s concept of relational aesthetics (2002), forms the atmosphere of this article. As a relational text, the article creates an encounter that speaks across research relations in which the subject of research reflects on being represented in ethnographic film and writing. This article describes an arts-based fieldwork approach where it’s not the outcome of research that matters most but instead cultivating the relational encounter between ethnographer and interlocutor becomes the critical intervention.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".