Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the transformative potential of feminist research-creation through the lens of krisis and collaborative world-building, positioning research-creation as both a method and an ethic of care. Revisiting the ancient Greek concept of krisis—a moment of judgment and discernment—as a framework for inquiry, the author contrasts her prior scholarly work embedded in traditional frameworks of critique, often rooted in metaphors of violence, with the reparative methodologies developed through her work with the Decameron Collective. Over four years of iterative collaboration, the Collective produced award-winning multimodal digital projects Decameron 2.0 and Memory Eternal, which use storytelling, co-creation, and curation to respond creatively to crises from the pandemic to climate change. This paper argues that research co-creation can redefine krisis as a site of generative potential, where making and theorizing intertwine to produce new forms of knowledge and connection. By centering relationality, materiality, and feminist ethics, the Collective’s work moves beyond solitary modes of inquiry to establish a collaborative, care-driven practice. Situating research-creation within philosophical traditions of theoria and contemporary feminist thought, the paper highlights a number of ways such collaborative creation and curation can sustain communities, foster epistemological innovation, and offer reparative responses to crises. The paper ultimately positions research co-creation and co-authorship integrating storytelling, digital design, and collective reflection in slow scholarship as a vital methodology for navigating complex global challenges and reimagining the role of scholarship in a world facing ongoing crises.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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; 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".