MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064269008 · doi:10.1097/fch.0b013e3181e4bbf0

Concept Mapping of Photovoices

2010· article· en· W2064269008 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsWellesley Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceParticipatory action researchImmigrationCitizen journalismInterpretation (philosophy)PerceptionSociologyConcept mapPsychologyGeographyComputer scienceAnthropologyVisual artsWorld Wide WebArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This inquiry successfully sequenced and integrated 2 participatory research methods: photovoice and concept mapping. In the photovoice phase, immigrant residents shared perceptions and thoughts of their neighborhood through photographs and stories, capturing neighborhood characteristics that influence their health and well-being. In the concept mapping phase, active involvement of immigrant residents was facilitated to systematically organize and build consensus around the wide range of neighborhood factors identified from the photovoice work. The combination of these 2 participatory methods resulted in a conceptual framework of factors influencing immigrants' health and well-being, whereas the photographs with captions facilitated interpretation and action at multiple levels.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.700
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.046 · 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