MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410024846 · doi:10.55016/pbgrc.v1i1.81418

The Dance of Transformation: Exploring embodied space, sacredness and possession in Brekete

2025· article· en· W4410024846 on OpenAlexafffund
Senyo Okyere

Bibliographic record

VenuePeer Beyond Graduate Research Conference · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsDanceEmbodied cognitionPossession (linguistics)Space (punctuation)Transformation (genetics)AestheticsArtSociologyVisual artsPhilosophyEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using ethnographic methods with insights gleaned from open-ended interviews and participant observation, this paper interrogates possession rituals in Brekete as a special modality of human behavior and examines the notion of sacred space and how the construct of sacred space shapes the perception of materiality, agency and territorialism. It further explores transformative encounters to determine the meaning of the physicality of dance in the creation of “communitas” (Turner, [1967] 1969) and wellbeing. Religious ritual practices are understood as expressive behavior that communicates meaning, notably about social structure, and the conscious vis-à-vis unconscious processes underlying perception, representation and performance of diverse types of actions coded in symbolic forms. In this perspective, ritual is simply not a set of distinct acts, but rather, ritual is a way of acting (Bell, 1990) and, consequently, the job of the ethnographer is to acquire the interpretational knowledge necessary to analyze the network of languages inherent in this apparently ‘irrational’ action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.025
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.309
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.154 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeer Beyond Graduate Research ConferenceSame topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ IssuesFrench-language works237,207