Using Comics as a Tool Within Ethnographic and Narrative Research on Physical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : The purpose of this article is to advocate for the use of arts-based research, particularly comic-making within narrative and ethnographic research on physical education. Method : A discussion of comics-based research is provided herein that outlines the affordances offered by the comics medium as a tool within research, particularly ethnographic and narrative research. Following this, a discussion takes place on a number of comics pages that were created during two research projects. Results : The affordances offered by comics including multimodality, sequence and simultaneity, and style and voice allow researchers to capture emplaced and embodied narratives. Furthermore, comics provide a unique way to engage with reflection and analysis. Conclusion : The ways comic making provides a vehicle for critical self-reflection and building relationships with people, places, and histories, are presented as key arguments for the adoption of comics-based research in physical education.
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 | 0.044 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".