miadisabelleauthorNov 12, 2026, 04:15 AMResearch report saved on the inquiry shelf for Guillaume.
- Folder:
261112-accounting-creating-relating-version-2-research-film-261112-f904169c-9665-4215-bc85-55ab16ca255d - File:
report.md, sha2568e92c662ba980c6989ec359adb32f9aa2c2fa65dbf364c4d07d021b6d1a62ea4
Accounting, Creating, Relating: a practice of research, film and healing, and what it asks of the Factory (version 2)#
A report for Guillaume, for the proposal to Concordia's MFA in Cinematic Arts, and for research-creators who read it in their own Factory account once it is shared with them. Written on 2026-11-11 and revised on 2026-11-12 by Mino-Bimaadizi-Daa (team T4) from Guillaume's French Perplexity report of the same day (shelf: miadisabelle/Etuaptmumk-RSM#287), his recorded instructions, the day's two screenwalk reviews, Episode 574 and what the platform holds today. Version 2 applies an independent review of version 1 (miadisabelle/Etuaptmumk-RSM#288).
Reading guide. A research-creator who composes music and is interested in healing, sound healing and the brain can read Section 3 (the practice), Section 4 (referencing the literature), Section 7 (music, memory and healing) and Section 9 (mentorship) on their own. Section 10 is the proposal. Sections 11 and 12 are for the people who build the Factory.
1. How this story begins#
This is told from the seat that kept the day's chart.
A man records himself talking about his practice, moving between a film he wants to make, a meeting with a friend who composes music, a proposal he owes a university, and a question he does not say aloud at first: what does he need in order to stay well? A research agent writes a report from the recording, in French. He hands that report to another agent, in English, with more words. Nobody has the whole of it yet.
What holds it together is not a topic. It is a way of moving. He meets a source before he knows why it matters. He talks it through. He keeps the trace. He tries something with it. He returns to what did not work and asks again, better. And then he explains the path to someone else, and in explaining it he understands it differently. This morning that someone was Jerry.
In Guillaume's own telling, this is also how healing happens for him. It does not come at the end of the work as a result. It is the condition the work needs in order to continue: relationships kept, limits respected, and a place to take part in ceremony. He names the Great Spirit as part of that. This report gives that orientation room, as his. It does not speak for any tradition.
The report has one centre: Section 3, Guillaume's practice explained so that Jerry and others can follow it. The other sections support that centre. Section 4 is the first teaching for newcomers, Section 5 the fields the work draws on, Sections 6 to 9 the literature on healing, music, film and mentorship, Section 10 the proposal, and Sections 11 and 12 what the platform must become.
2. What this report rests on, and what it does not#
Sources used.
- Guillaume's Perplexity report in French (Rendre compte, créer, se relier), saved on the shelf today word for word. It was made from his audio recording, which this seat has not heard. Where this report relies on what the recording says, it relies on that report's reading of it.
- His spoken instructions to this seat on 2026-11-11.
- The screenwalk description ChatGPT drafted for the reflective return, which Guillaume pasted and called "not the ground truth". Sections 3.2, 8.2 and 10 take ideas from it.
- Episode 574 (miadi-chronicle://574), which holds the MFA in Cinematic Arts application requirements and Guillaume's draft proposal.
- The two morning screenwalks and their reviews: miadi-review:9c60a708-b270-45f8-b6d5-f05b0ed6d862 (001, academic writing genres, 33:25) and miadi-review:c42261af-be32-44cd-b83b-507854b6f34c (002, Ceremony, Song and Screen, 14:31).
- What the platform does today, read from its code and records on the same day.
- Published literature. Works this seat knows well are cited directly. Works known only through the Perplexity report are marked (via Perplexity).
What this report is not. It is a situated exploratory review with a proposed method and a reading of the platform. It is not a systematic review. It is not a clinical evaluation. It is not a validation by any community of how Indigenous knowledge is used.
Three registers kept apart throughout. These are taken from the Perplexity report. They are the most useful idea in it.
| Register | What it holds | Who has authority over it |
|---|---|---|
| Lived experience | What a person reports having felt or lived | The person |
| Interpretation | The meaning given to it, including spiritual meaning | The person, and those they hold relations with |
| Scientific claim | What a study's methods and results support | The study, read critically |
None of these ranks above the others. A heart-rate change does not prove healing. A spiritual meaning does not need a brain scan to be true for the person who lives it. And a heartfelt intention does not excuse a wrong citation.
Names in the sources. The Perplexity report calls the practitioner "Mia". Here the practitioner is Guillaume. Shawn Wilson's first name is spelled Shawn. One of this morning's reviews spelled it "Sean", and that is corrected.
3. The practice: what Guillaume does, explained so it can be shared#
This section stands on its own. It is the part a research-creator reads first when this report is shared with them in the Factory.
3.1 The movement#
- Meeting a source before knowing why. Something draws attention: a book, a talk, an idea, a piece of music. Its use is not yet clear, and that is allowed.
- Putting it into words with an agent. A conversation with an AI agent helps name the concepts, sharpen the question, and prepare a more intentional reading. This first round is exploratory. Part of its job is to show what should be asked differently next time.
- Keeping the domain separate from the self. First the field is presented on its own terms, without bending it toward the project. Only then comes a section about Guillaume's own intentions. This keeps him from hearing only what he wants to hear.
- Keeping the trace. The result is kept with its context: the original request, the text produced, the link to the conversation, and a reference in a repository, usually an issue. Later he can find out what shaped a creative choice.
- Testing it in creation. The research goes into prompts, compositions and film experiments. The work answers back.
- Returning to the gap. When a result disappoints, he does not only fix the result. He rereads the first request, its words and its assumptions, and asks again from an experience that is now more precise.
- Sharing the path. Explaining the method to someone else is not an afterthought. It is one of the places where the work becomes clear, to him as much as to them.
3.2 What makes it more than "asking an AI for a summary"#
The person stays the one who lives the experience, interprets it and redirects it. The agent helps with gathering, organising, comparing and drafting. Meaning, responsibility, artistic intention and personal expression remain human work. Today's screenwalks show why this matters. The generated review of the second video lost the creator's title and said two kinds of knowledge were "reconciled using Two-Eyed Seeing". An agent session compared the review with the captions and found that phrase nowhere in them. The captions do not carry Guillaume's own voice, so whether the recording says it is still unchecked. A person decides what follows.
3.3 Three meanings of being accountable#
"Rendre compte" in French means both to give an account and to be answerable. In this practice it has three parts, and each needs its own care:
- Making the path intelligible: saying what was done, tried and revised.
- Answering to existing work: placing a contribution among others, and never claiming as your own an idea that came from someone else.
- Answering to the relations involved: the people concerned, the responsibilities taken on, the consequences of the work.
A perfect bibliography does not make a relationship responsible. A responsible relationship does not excuse an unchecked reference. Both are needed.
3.4 The research object#
The proposed object of study is not only what the practice produces. It is how understanding changes as it moves through these passages. This is an interpretation offered back to Guillaume, not a settled intention.
3.5 A prompt a research-creator can reuse with their own agent#
Starting from the exact title and author of this book, prepare an exploration around this question: [question].
Keep apart what belongs to the book, what comes from other research, and what is your own interpretation.
First present the field on its own terms, without relating it to my project. Then add a separate section on my intentions: [intentions].
Point out disagreements, the limits of the evidence, and any reference you could not read directly.
Propose three research questions and the readings that would deepen each.
Do not treat an emotional or spiritual experience as a diagnosis or as proof that a therapy works.
4. A first teaching for newcomers: why and how we reference#
Guillaume asked for "a very fundamental teaching for newbies that are interested in knowing the principle of referencing something else in the literature to build yourself on the foundation." This is a first version. Its examples come from today's own work.
4.1 Why we cite#
Research is a conversation that started before you arrived and will go on after you leave. Kenneth Burke described it as an "unending conversation" that you join by listening first, then speaking, then leaving while it continues (Burke, 1941). Graff and Birkenstein built a whole method of academic writing on this idea: you state what others say before you say what you say (They Say / I Say). A citation does three things:
- It gives credit. The idea came from someone. Naming them is honest, and in Indigenous research it is also relational: you say whose knowledge you stand on (Wilson, 2008; Kovach, 2009).
- It lets others check. A reader can go to the source and see whether it really says what you claim.
- It places your contribution. By showing what already exists, you make visible what is new in your work and what is not.
4.2 How a claim rests on a source#
Every sentence in a review is one of three kinds:
- What the source says. "Janata (2009) found that the medial prefrontal cortex tracked how autobiographically salient a piece of music was."
- What several sources say together. "Reviews of music interventions for stress find favourable average effects, but the results vary with the kind of intervention" (de Witte et al., 2020).
- What you think. "This suggests composing may differ from listening." This must be marked as your own.
Booth, Colomb and Williams (The Craft of Research) teach the same structure as claim, reasons, evidence and acknowledgement of counter-arguments. Swales (1990) shows how a research introduction first establishes the territory, then shows where something is missing, then occupies that space. That is how the Concordia proposal should open.
4.3 How to check that a source says what you claim#
This is where today taught the lesson by itself:
- A name spelled wrong. The first review wrote "Sean Wilson". The author is Shawn Wilson. A wrong name breaks the chain back to the source.
- A claim the captions do not support. The review of 002 said that epistemologies were "reconciled using Two-Eyed Seeing". The captions do not contain the phrase. They also miss Guillaume's own voice. So the captions do not support the claim, and the recording itself is not yet checked. Two-Eyed Seeing, as Elder Albert Marshall describes it, asks us to see with both eyes. It does not claim that the two have been merged (Bartlett, Marshall & Marshall, 2012).
- A transcript nobody has listened to yet. The transcript of 001 was made by a machine. It says so in its header. Until a person listens to the doubtful passages, its words are not quotations.
The habit to teach: before you quote, go back to the source. Before you summarise, read the whole of it. When you could not read it, say so. The Perplexity report does this well. It says the author of Jerry's book is unknown and refuses to guess "Levitin or Sacks".
4.4 Words for kinds of reading#
Grant and Booth (2009) list fourteen kinds of review. Snyder (2019) offers a simpler guide. For a newcomer, three distinctions are enough:
| Name | What it is |
|---|---|
| Critical reading of one work | One book or article, read closely: its argument, evidence and limits |
| Narrative or exploratory review | Several works around a question, with their agreements, disagreements and gaps |
| Systematic review | A pre-stated search across databases, with criteria, appraisal and often a meta-analysis |
A study of one book is a critical reading, not yet a literature review. Boote and Beile (2005) argue that a researcher cannot contribute to a field without first understanding its literature. That is why the review comes before the thesis.
5. The fields this work draws on, and the competence each asks for#
Each field is listed with at most two subfields, the question it answers for this work, and the level of competence the work needs. The levels are: practiced (today's work shows it), learning (begun, needs reading or guidance), and with others (needs an authorized collaborator or a holder of the knowledge).
| Field | Subfields | The question it answers here | Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research-creation | practice-based research; reflective practice | How does making a film or a composition produce knowledge? | practiced, learning the vocabulary |
| Indigenous research methodologies | relational accountability; storywork | To which relations does the research answer, and how is knowledge held? | learning; cultural applications with others |
| Film production and interactive narrative | directing and editing; interactive fiction (Twine) | What do the thesis film and its living script make knowable? | practiced, shown in the portfolio |
| Documentary and participatory cinema | reflexive documentary; participatory video | Who tells, who edits, who decides where the film goes? | learning; the screenwalks are a related practice, not yet documentary |
| Music cognition | music-evoked autobiographical memory; music and emotion | Why can music meet a person's own history? | learning (Jerry's field) |
| Music, arts and health | music interventions; arts and wellbeing | What improvements are observed, for whom, with what limits? | learning; clinical claims with others |
| Indigenous health and healing | culture as treatment; response-based practice | How is wellbeing tied to land, relation, ceremony and responses to violence? | learning; with others |
| Mentorship and learning | cognitive apprenticeship; communities of practice | How does a newcomer learn a practice by watching and doing? | practiced with Jerry, learning |
| Academic writing | genre analysis; the literature review | How does a proposal place itself among existing work? | practiced (screenwalk 001), learning |
| Research ethics and data sovereignty | TCPS 2 Chapter 9; OCAP and CARE | What consent and control do people and communities keep over their data and stories? | learning; with others |
| Knowledge systems design | provenance; consent-aware data | How does a platform keep source, interpretation and consent apart? | practiced (the Factory) |
| Recovery and peer support | twelve-step fellowship; narrative and illness | How does sharing one's path sustain the one who shares? | lived; not a research method by itself |
The aim is not to master all of these. A proposal should show what is already practised, what is being learned, and what will only be done together with people who hold the authority.
6. Healing: what the literature supports, and what it leaves outside#
6.1 Healing as relation#
Healing in Guillaume's telling is relational and spiritual as well as personal. Indigenous health research gives that view a solid footing:
- Catherine Richardson (Kineweskwêw) situates healing after colonial violence in cultural, social and spiritual relationships, and in honouring how people responded to violence, rather than only in the removal of an individual problem (Richardson et al., 2021). Concordia lists her as Concordia University Research Chair in Indigenous Healing Knowledges and co-director of the Centre for Oral History and Storytelling. She is a plausible match for the researcher Guillaume wrote to, but that identity is not confirmed.
- Kirmayer, Simpson and Cargo (2003) describe healing traditions among Indigenous peoples in Canada as working through culture, community and the restoration of collective identity, not only through individual treatment.
- Gone (2013) theorizes how Indigenous culture itself can act as mental health treatment in response to historical trauma.
- Hart (2002) sets out an Aboriginal approach to helping centred on mino-pimatisiwin, the good life, and Duran (2006) writes of healing the "soul wound" in counselling with Native peoples.
Together these show that a scientific account of what music does in the brain is one account among several. It does not cover the whole of what healing means.
6.2 Ceremony, spirit, and the right not to document#
A ceremony can be essential to Guillaume's path without becoming data. It does not have to be recorded, automated or reproduced in software. The right not to document is part of the method. The platform must be able to record that something happened and that nothing of it is to be kept (Section 11).
Shawn Wilson's Research Is Ceremony (2008) is the ground Guillaume stands on. It treats research as a set of relationships, with relational accountability as its centre. Kovach (2009), Archibald (2008), Absolon (2011) and Smith (1999) are close companions on the same path. Archibald's seven principles of storywork apply directly to the storytelling parts of this work: respect, responsibility, reciprocity, reverence, holism, interrelatedness and synergy.
A reflection offered for Guillaume to confirm. In the method Guillaume follows, a researcher answers to relations with people, with the land, with the cosmos and with ideas (Wilson, 2008; check the page before quoting). For him the Great Spirit may be held in the relation with the cosmos. It is then not a topic studied from outside. It is one of the relations the work answers to, and ceremony is where that relation is tended. If this is not how he holds it, this paragraph is removed.
Two cautions remain:
- Medicine Wheel teachings are not one pan-Indigenous scheme. They belong to particular Nations and teachers.
- Jung's account of his 1925 visit to Taos Pueblo (Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 1963) is his own European reflection. It can be in dialogue with this work, but it does not authorize any Indigenous teaching.
6.3 Recovery and carrying the message#
The recording links sharing the practice to principles from Narcotics Anonymous: steps, traditions and service. NA's Twelfth Step speaks of carrying this message to addicts and practising the principles in all one's affairs (Narcotics Anonymous World Services, 2008). Exact wording should be checked against the Basic Text before it is quoted. In Guillaume's practice, teaching Jerry may also be part of what keeps him well. Frank's The Wounded Storyteller (1995) gives scholarly language for this: telling one's own story of illness and recovery as a moral and relational act.
This stays part of Guillaume's positioning. It is not presented as an academic research method. And giving an account does not mean making everything public.
7. Music, memory and the brain: a starting map for Jerry's review#
Jerry works on musical composition and on what music does in the brain. Guillaume's film practice wants to explore healing. This section is a starting map for the review Jerry might write and Guillaume might receive.
7.1 What is well supported#
- Music and autobiographical memory. Janata (2009) linked personally significant music to activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, a region involved in self-related processing and memory. Kaiser and Berntsen (2023) review music-evoked autobiographical memories in clinical groups. Familiarity matters, and results vary with the condition studied.
- Music and emotion in the brain. Koelsch (2014) maps music-evoked emotions onto core emotion networks, including the amygdala, the hippocampus and reward circuits. Salimpoor and colleagues (2011) showed dopamine release in the striatum, both in anticipation of a musical peak and at the peak itself.
- Music in recovery from injury. Särkämö and colleagues (2008) found that daily music listening after stroke improved verbal memory, focused attention and mood compared with audiobooks or no listening.
- Music and stress. De Witte and colleagues (2020) pooled 104 randomized trials and found favourable average effects on physiological and psychological stress outcomes.
- Arts and health broadly. A WHO Europe scoping review (Fancourt & Finn, 2019) found evidence that the arts play roles in prevention, promotion and treatment, while noting the evidence is uneven.
7.2 What is not established#
The Perplexity report reads several further syntheses (via Perplexity). A 2022 review found no significant pooled effect of listening on recovery after stress, in healthy adults after a laboratory stressor (14 experiments, 706 people; Adiasto et al., 2022). A 2024 review of music therapy for PTSD rated the certainty of its evidence low (Ma, Yuan & Zhong, 2024). A 2025 review found methodological weaknesses in studies of brain injury and PTSD. The message for the review is plain. An intense experience is not automatically a reparative one, and "music" covers listening, improvising, composing and therapy led by a trained therapist, which are different things.
7.3 Three questions for Jerry's review#
- How do listening, improvising and composing differ? The interventions grouped under "music" are too varied to treat as one.
- What part do familiarity and personal history play? The memory research points here.
- How do we tell apart emotional activation, reported wellbeing and clinical benefit? The weaknesses of the trauma studies make this separation necessary.
Before analysing Jerry's book, get its exact title, author and edition. Levitin (2006) and Sacks (2007) are common entry points to this field, but neither should be assumed to be his book.
7.4 Where the composition tools fit#
The recording links the composition tools Guillaume and Jerry built together to the awakening of deep experiences. That testimony is a valid starting point for research. By itself it does not show what mechanism is at work. If it becomes a study, it needs:
- a way to stop;
- a way not to interpret right away;
- a way to keep some material out of reuse;
- consent that separates a working conversation, a creative collaboration and participation in research.
7.5 Song, drum and ceremony as healing#
Named in the 002 recording. Verify each before citing it. The recording names further evidence: Ferreri and colleagues (2019) on dopamine and musical pleasure, a 2017 Cochrane review of music therapy for depression, a 2022 scoping review of 38 studies of cinema and video therapy, and a drumming study by the Wabano Centre and the University of Ottawa, which "hasn't reported results yet". Sound healing, drumming and song in ceremony belong here. They are the part of Jerry's interest that clinical trials measure least, and they are held by communities and teachers rather than by the literature alone.
8. Film, research-creation, and the screenwalk as method#
8.1 Research-creation#
SSHRC treats research-creation as research that combines creative and academic practices and develops knowledge through artistic expression, scholarly investigation and experimentation. Chapman and Sawchuk (2012) distinguish four "family resemblances": research-for-creation, research-from-creation, creative presentations of research, and creation-as-research. Candy and Edmonds (2018) separate practice-based research, where the made work is itself part of the contribution, from practice-led research, where the contribution is a new understanding of the practice. Nelson (2013) adds the triad of know-how, know-what and know-that. Leavy (2020) gathers arts-based research methods. Schön (1983) names the reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action that Guillaume's "returning to the gap" already does.
8.2 Documentary that keeps the inquiry#
A documentary can preserve more than a final explanation. It can preserve the unfolding inquiry: a question asked, an interpretation offered, someone challenging it, the understanding changing. Nichols (2017) names the participatory and reflexive modes of documentary, in which the filmmaker's encounter and the making of the film become part of what is shown. MacDougall (1998) and Rouch's shared anthropology bring the people filmed into the making. Handbook of Participatory Video (Milne, Mitchell & de Lange, 2012) gives methods for people to film, review and contest their own representation. Ginsburg (1991) and Raheja (2010) bring the Indigenous media question to the centre: who holds visual sovereignty over a story.
8.3 The screenwalk#
The screenwalk is a recording of a person working with agent sessions, with their voices. It does something related to participatory documentary, in a digital setting where humans and computational agents work together. It documents what the agent says, and also how the person answers, redirects and chooses what deserves to continue. Today's three screenwalks, an academic genres walk, Ceremony, Song and Screen, and the reflective return, are a small corpus of this method.
9. Mentorship: teaching that teaches the teacher#
What Guillaume described is two sessions: his own main session, which he carries on, and Jerry's, dedicated to learning and witnessing how Guillaume does a literature review and how a review is made in the Factory.
- Cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989) describes how an expert makes thinking visible through modelling, coaching and scaffolding, then fades as the learner takes over. A screenwalk is a recording of modelling.
- Legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) describes how a newcomer joins a community of practice by doing real but bounded work at its edge. Jerry asking his own agent for a first exploration is that kind of work.
- Reciprocity. The recording shows teaching flowing back: helping Jerry understand a method made Guillaume clarify his own, and Jerry's music research may feed Guillaume's film. Archibald's reciprocity principle (2008) and Wilson's relational accountability (2008) both expect this.
Two distinctions protect the relationship:
- Jerry is not a research participant because he is a collaborator. Working conversation, creative collaboration and participation in research are three situations, and each needs its own agreement. For anything that touches First Nations, Inuit or Métis knowledge, TCPS 2 Chapter 9 sets the ethical frame Concordia will expect.
- Nothing of Jerry's is read without his consent. That includes his notebook, his session and his questions to his own agent.
A transmission journal could record four things after each meeting: what Guillaume meant to explain, what Jerry understood, what changed in the method, and what came back into the film practice.
10. Toward the Concordia proposal#
10.0 What Concordia asks, and what Guillaume has already written#
The program is Concordia's MFA in Cinematic Arts. Its application asks for a "5-page thesis proposal, outlining how you plan to integrate theoretical and practical elements in your cinematic arts practice", in six suggested parts: Working Title & Abstract, Preliminary Research, Methodology, Significance, Production Timeline & Budget, and Bibliography, which includes artistic influences such as films, installations and performances. It admits for the Fall term only, full-time and in residence, and applications close on December 15 through SlideRoom. Episode 574 (miadi-chronicle://574) holds Concordia's words and Guillaume's own material for each part.
Guillaume has a draft, version 3, titled "Film & Media as Knowledge Practice: Agent-Supported Production": an experimental documentary short with a navigable Twine book. His own notes set two limits this report must respect. A master's is "not about innovation, it's just about a statement of the fact or kind of a recognition of the landscape". And: "I shall not propose anything to some decolonized or non-existing Frameworks". The directions below are read against that draft, and each one must name its film.
10.1 A working thesis (to discuss)#
A research-creation practice can be studied through the relations it makes visible between intuition, documentation, experimentation and transmission. A digital environment can support that making-visible, provided it preserves where each interpretation comes from and the authority of people over their own stories.
10.2 A central question#
How can a participatory film practice, supported by a documentary memory and AI agents, give an account of its own transformations while respecting consent and the spiritual dimensions of experience?
Music can be a privileged ground inside this question rather than a second project. The hypothesis would be that some experiences of composing make the passages between feeling, memory, story and creative choice especially visible.
10.3 Three candidate five-page proposals#
These are three possible directions, not final theses, each read against draft version 3. Each names its film. Direction B is checked against Guillaume's note on frameworks: it proposes no framework of its own and only asks how a film answers to relations already named by others.
| A. Music, story and healing | B. Ceremony and relational accountability | C. The screenwalk as method | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question | What can a film made with composed music show about feeling, memory and wellbeing, and where do measurements of healing stop? | How can lived and ceremonial knowledge be represented on screen with accountability to the relations it comes from? | What does recording a person's work with AI agents let a researcher know about their own practice? |
| Fields | music cognition; arts and health; research-creation | Indigenous methodologies; Indigenous media; research ethics | reflexive documentary; practice-based research; human-AI interaction |
| Method | a bounded creative sequence with Jerry; transmission journal; three registers kept apart | relational protocol; consent by use; withholding as a valid outcome | a corpus of screenwalks; analysis of corrections between agent output and human return |
| The film | a short documentary in which a composition is made with Jerry, and its Twine book | a short documentary whose edit keeps out what must not circulate, and its Twine book | the experimental documentary short of draft v3, built from screenwalks, and its Twine book |
| Contribution | the film and an account of its making | the film and a reflection on what must not circulate | the film and an understanding of practice |
| Needs, with others | a music-health researcher for clinical claims | knowledge holders and community consent | a thesis supervisor in the program, and consent of the people recorded |
Recommendation. Choose one principal contribution, and present the others as its conditions or secondary outputs. Otherwise the application would have to prove a theory of healing, a teaching method, a software innovation and a new film form all at once.
10.4 The five pages, in Concordia's six parts#
| Part | What it holds here |
|---|---|
| Working Title & Abstract | Draft v3's title and the chosen direction in a paragraph |
| Preliminary Research | The fields of Section 5, the works the film speaks with, and the tension left open (Swales helps write it: territory, gap, contribution) |
| Methodology | Creation, documentation, participation and analysis, with consent by use |
| Significance | What the film and its making let others know, stated as a recognition of the landscape, not an innovation |
| Production Timeline & Budget | The bounded first cycle of 10.5, with its months and costs |
| Bibliography | The references below and the films and works list, artistic influences first |
10.5 A feasible first cycle#
- Bound one creative sequence or a small corpus.
- Write down the first intention and its uncertainties.
- Link the research to the choices made.
- Keep the significant versions.
- Gather responses only from people who agreed to take part.
- Describe changes and disagreements without crediting them automatically to the AI or to the music.
- Make one shareable form, and write down what stays out of circulation.
11. What the platform can do today, and what this work requires of it#
These requirements come from today's work. Each row says what exists, measured today, and what is needed.
| Code | Requirement | Today (2026-11-11) | Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 | Share a report with a named person or a circle | Live since 2026-11-11 (jgwill/Miadi#1005). The owner shares a shelf report with a talking circle or one person from /research and can withdraw it. Each share is recorded in the report's weave. A reader finds it under Shared, with the circle or person it came through. An independent review found that readers without an API tier are refused through the connector, and a fix is under way. Neither report is shared yet. | A research-creator's account page that gathers what is shared with them, their scenario route and their notebook |
| R-02 | Place any account with a role into a scenario | Specified in rispecs/scenario-participation. Proposals for the name (workshop), a new package and three starting profiles (learner, mentor, assistant_seat) are written in SPEC.md and wait for Guillaume. Nothing is built. | A placement the participant accepts, a private route, returns they write themselves |
| R-03 | Every review has a transcript whose origin is shown | 002 has caption text. 001 now holds a local machine transcription labelled not human-verified, covering 01:19–28:03 of 33:25. | Listened spans marked, corrections kept separately from the stored text |
| R-04 | A mission starts only from an acceptable structure | Missions are checked against a standard that advises and blocks nothing | Jev rejects a weak mission back to its proposer with reasons (mission prepared, Episode 571) |
| R-05 | A decision shows whether a person clicked | Today's approval says "via card:ChatGPT"; Guillaume does not recall approving | Click provenance on every decision (mission prepared) |
| R-06 | Consent by use | consent-lifecycle exists | Separate scopes: recording, transcription, AI analysis, memory projection, editing, teaching, publication |
| R-07 | Record that nothing is to be kept | Not seen in today's reading | A "not captured" record that is not treated as missing data |
| R-08 | Epistemic labels on every item | The reviews needed them by hand today | Primary source, transcript, synthesis, human interpretation, agent inference, confirmed decision |
| R-09 | Filter what is projected into shared memory | The wheel README says of the Honcho projection: "Nothing is filtered here" | Projection filtered by consent scope, and withdrawal reaching derived copies |
| R-10 | An inferred intention stays a proposal | Practiced in some places, not enforced | Status "proposed, not confirmed" until the person confirms it |
| R-11 | A report in two languages | Today's report is French and this one English, on the same shelf | The two linked as translations of one inquiry |
| R-12 | A transmission journal | ceremonial-diary exists | Mentor and learner entries, each private by default |
12. Proposed revisions to the medicine-wheel packages, for cinema and Concordia#
These are proposals, not absences confirmed by an audit. The packages are at 0.27.10 and marked experimental alpha.
perception-layer(witnesses film-production source material as typed events): add an evidence level to each event (observed, transcribed, inferred), and a "not captured" event kind for moments that happened and must not be kept.narrative-cluster(turns witnessed events into cinematic clusters, beats and a Film Edit Brief): have the Film Edit Brief carry each clip's provenance and consent scopes, and leave out any clip whose consent excludes editing.consent-lifecycle: hold consent per use (R-06), and let withdrawal propagate to Honcho projections and any derived material.ceremonial-diary: mark each entry as personal, research material or shareable, and add mentor and learner entries for the transmission journal (R-12).honcho: filter at projection by consent scope (R-09).community-identity: keep apart a person's technical role, their research role (participant or collaborator) and any cultural authority. Software never assigns the last of these.- Names and directions: state where each direction, colour and Ojibwe name comes from and what authority it carries, rather than presenting them as one universal Indigenous structure.
- Scores: say plainly that epistemic weights and transformation tracking are software conventions. They are not measures of spiritual truth, healing or methodological conformity.
13. Friday with Jerry: a bounded plan#
- Open by asking what each person wants from this cycle.
- Listen together to two doubtful passages of the 001 transcript, the last minutes first. Correct them and record each correction with its source. This is the first teaching of Section 4 done by hand.
- Jerry names his book: exact title, author, edition.
- Jerry asks his own agent for a first exploration with the prompt in Section 3.5, and keeps it in his own notebook.
- Agree how material is shared. Guillaume decides whether to share this report with Jerry, or with a circle Jerry sits in, from the shelf's Share action. Nothing is handed over outside the platform.
- Close with the next step chosen together, and one line in the transmission journal.
14. Still to gather#
- The versions of Episode 103, and of Episode 567 or 568 (the recording was not sure which), in order.
- The meeting with Nicolas Renaud, named in the recording: what he said, how it was understood then, and the questions that are new now.
- The title and edition of Jerry's book.
- The identity of the researcher Guillaume wrote to. Catherine Richardson is plausible, not confirmed.
- The report from the Claude project Researchers Ceremony, not yet on the shelf.
- Human listening of the 001 transcript.
15. Closing#
The work did not end today. It became more visible. A title was corrected, a name was spelled right, a transcript found its limits, a mission was shown to be too vague to begin, and a friend asked a question that turned a teacher back toward his own method. Each of those moved the research forward, and each can be traced to whoever did it.
Whatever is held here in relation to the Great Spirit is held in Guillaume's own way. It is not reduced to a brain region and not offered as proof. It is the reason the work is worth continuing, and it is his to keep or to share.
References#
Adiasto, K., Beckers, D. G. J., van Hooff, M. L. M., Roelofs, K., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2022). Music listening and stress recovery in healthy individuals: A systematic review with meta-analysis of experimental studies. PLoS ONE, 17(6), e0270031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270031
Absolon, K. E. (Minogiizhigokwe). (2011). Kaandossiwin: How we come to know. Fernwood.
Archibald, J. (Q'um Q'um Xiiem). (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC Press.
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 331–340.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Burke, K. (1941). The philosophy of literary form. Louisiana State University Press.
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2018). Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line. Leonardo, 51(1), 63–69.
Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., … Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal, 19, 43.
Chapman, O., & Sawchuk, K. (2012). Research-creation: Intervention, analysis and "family resemblances". Canadian Journal of Communication, 37(1), 5–26.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Erlbaum.
de Witte, M., Spruit, A., van Hooren, S., Moonen, X., & Stams, G.-J. (2020). Effects of music interventions on stress-related outcomes: A systematic review and two meta-analyses. Health Psychology Review, 14(2), 294–324.
Duran, E. (2006). Healing the soul wound: Counseling with American Indians and other Native peoples. Teachers College Press.
Fancourt, D., & Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review (Health Evidence Network synthesis report 67). WHO Regional Office for Europe.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (n.d.). The First Nations principles of OCAP®.
Frank, A. W. (1995). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics. University of Chicago Press.
Ginsburg, F. (1991). Indigenous media: Faustian contract or global village? Cultural Anthropology, 6(1), 92–112.
Gone, J. P. (2013). Redressing First Nations historical trauma: Theorizing mechanisms for indigenous culture as mental health treatment. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(5), 683–706.
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2006). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. W. W. Norton.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
Hart, M. A. (2002). Seeking mino-pimatisiwin: An Aboriginal approach to helping. Fernwood.
Janata, P. (2009). The neural architecture of music-evoked autobiographical memories. Cerebral Cortex, 19(11), 2579–2594.
Jung, C. G. (1963). Memories, dreams, reflections (A. Jaffé, Ed.; R. & C. Winston, Trans.). Pantheon.
Kaiser, A. P., & Berntsen, D. (2023). [A systematic review of music-evoked autobiographical memories in clinical groups; exact title to verify]. WIREs Cognitive Science, 14, e1627. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1627
Kirmayer, L., Simpson, C., & Cargo, M. (2003). Healing traditions: Culture, community and mental health promotion with Canadian Aboriginal peoples. Australasian Psychiatry, 11(Suppl.), S15–S23.
Koelsch, S. (2014). Brain correlates of music-evoked emotions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(3), 170–180.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Leavy, P. (2020). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice (3rd ed.). Guilford.
Levitin, D. J. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human obsession. Dutton.
Ma, Y.-M., Yuan, M.-D., & Zhong, B.-L. (2024). Efficacy and acceptability of music therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 15(1), 2342739. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2342739
MacDougall, D. (1998). Transcultural cinema. Princeton University Press.
Milne, E.-J., Mitchell, C., & de Lange, N. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of participatory video. AltaMira.
Narcotics Anonymous World Services. (2008). Narcotics Anonymous (6th ed.).
Nelson, R. (2013). Practice as research in the arts: Principles, protocols, pedagogies, resistances. Palgrave Macmillan.
Nichols, B. (2017). Introduction to documentary (3rd ed.). Indiana University Press.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans – TCPS 2 (2022), Chapter 9: Research involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada. Government of Canada.
Raheja, M. H. (2010). Reservation reelism: Redfacing, visual sovereignty, and representations of Native Americans in film. University of Nebraska Press.
Richardson, C. (Kinewesquao), Aviles-Betel, K., Ismail-Allouche, Z., & Picard, V. (2021). Healing and rebalancing in the aftermath of colonial violence: An Indigenous-informed, response-based approach. Genealogy, 5(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy5030069
Rouch, J. (2003). Ciné-ethnography (S. Feld, Ed. & Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Sacks, O. (2007). Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain. Knopf.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 257–262.
Särkämö, T., Tervaniemi, M., Laitinen, S., Forsblom, A., Soinila, S., Mikkonen, M., … Hietanen, M. (2008). Music listening enhances cognitive recovery and mood after middle cerebral artery stroke. Brain, 131(3), 866–876.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of terms: Research-creation.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Waugh, T., Baker, M. B., & Winton, E. (Eds.). (2010). Challenge for Change: Activist documentary at the National Film Board of Canada. McGill-Queen's University Press.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood.
Cited from the Perplexity report and the 002 recording, with details still to fill in: the 2025 review of interventions for brain injury and PTSD in NeuroRehabilitation, 57(4), 504–519 (PMID 41186535; authors to be added); Ferreri et al. (2019) on dopamine and musical pleasure; the 2017 Cochrane review of music therapy for depression; the 2022 scoping review of cinema and video therapy; Concordia University, MFA in Cinematic Arts application page; Concordia University, faculty profile of Catherine Richardson.
Films and works#
Concordia asks that artistic influences come first in the bibliography. Guillaume chooses the rest of this list (Episode 574).
- Renaud, N. (2022). Onyionhwentsïio' [Film]. Named in Guillaume's draft.
- The National Film Board's Challenge for Change program and its Fogo Island films (1967 onward), named in the 002 recording as a line leading to Concordia's research-creation framework (see Waugh, Baker & Winton, 2010).