The Value of Arts-Based Methods in STEM: Formal Analysis, Open Dialogue, and Subjectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Fall of 2021, STEM researchers were invited to participate in a series of SSHRC-funded workshops delivered at the University of Guelph’s School of Fine Art and Music (SOFAM), where they examined a work of abstract art drawn from the SOFAM Print Study Collection ( Reflex Victory by Chrysanne Stathacos, lithograph, 1979). The project’s objective was to determine if methodologies used in the analysis and interpretation of art are helpful to researchers who use visual observation as a primary method of collecting data. Our findings indicate that over the duration of the one-hour workshop, participants demonstrated greater confidence in identifying what lay in their fields of vision with precision, exhibited greater comfort in pursuing open-ended inquiry, and became more conscious of the mutable and subjective qualities of their looking. This report shares the story of our experiment and presents our preliminary findings on the value of arts-based methodologies in developing skills in data collection and analysis. This research contributes to the discourse on the role visual art can play in practices of teaching, learning, and research that extend beyond the studio, museum, and gallery space.
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 | 0.036 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".