Slowing Down and Taking Time: A Proposal for Integrating Care Ethics into Visual Storytelling Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This forum contribution discusses an arts-based research project that reconfigures survivor testimony within a relational ethics framework. Highlighting the creative partnership between Utrecht-based comics artist Tobi Dahmen and his research collaborator Akram, a young man who survived the Syrian prison system, the author proposes to employ comic drawing as an inquiry-based tool and caring practice during collaborative life writing sessions. A commitment to relational storytelling—honouring relationships that are based on mutual trust and shared authority—also fosters a practice of mindful, reflective slow scholarship. Taking time is thus a critical pillar of collaborative storytelling work for the survivors and the artists, as well as all members on the research team, as they mutually negotiate the flow, pace, and rhythm of co-narration.
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 | 0.083 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".