Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite good intentions, academic research often reflects an extractive model and is not always seen as useful within the Canadian arts sector. Mass Culture is a non-profit organization that aims to bring together cultural workers and academics in support of collaborative research and better knowledge mobilization. To that end, their Research in Residence (RinR) initiative involved complex collaborations between the arts sector and academia to explore five applied research projects on a topic of shared importance to participants - that is, articulating the value of the arts through qualitative rather than quantitative measurements. To learn from the experimental research design, participants conducted a developmental evaluation with five lines of inquiry: benefits and effects, program design adaptations, values alignment, efficacy and potential, and knowledge mobilization and research engagement. The evaluation had three purposes: (1) to gather data and facilitate analysis of the key questions that the initiative was trying to understand; (2) to inform Mass Culture's implementation and adaptation of the initiative; and (3) to generate insights on principles and practices that could inform the design of future initiatives. This article considers the second and third purposes, outlining key lessons learned that shaped the initiative and/or should inform future projects.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it