Safeties: multiple ways of thinking/feeling/being safe: Explored through arts-based research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
,This research incorporated qualitative arts-based research to determine the perceptions of safety from nine female students attending the University of Northern British Columbia. The participants were invited to attend a focus group discussion on women’s safety. Based on that discussion, the women created art to showcase their perceptions of safety. The art was displayed a month later, and the local community was invited to view it and comment, sharing their thoughts and feedback. Several common themes emerged, including how safety is expressed externally and felt internally, what safe spaces look like, and the dangers that exist threatening feelings of safety. The participants in this research stated that safety involves feeling authentic and true to oneself, feeling calm and safe, living in a welcoming and predictable environment, feeling accepted and respected, and being protected from harm. The women's perceptions of safety in this research were gathered, and an alternate definition of safety was created that encompassed their thoughts and beliefs. This research showcased that while many themes connect women’s perceptions of safety, ultimately, safety is uniquely experienced by each person.
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 | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".