MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072591756 · doi:10.1177/1470357212462962

Visual optics: interpreting body art, three ways

2013· article· en· W2072591756 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

VenueVisual Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicVisual Culture and Art Theory
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsVisual literacyNarrativeIdentity (music)MultimodalityRelation (database)Conjunction (astronomy)Visual artsComputer scienceSociologyAestheticsPsychologyArtEpistemologyLiteratureMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research methodology using visual narrative techniques opens up conceptual views for interpreting a wide range of visuals. In this article, the authors analyse tattoos on a subject’s body and approach the task from what they term three ‘optics’: social semiotics; sedimented identity in texts; and New Literacy Studies in relation to multimodality, drawing on ethnographic perspectives. Each optic illustrates how a woman constructs her identity through her body art. The article serves to illustrate that, whilst the use of visual methods in a small-scale study does not aim to be generalizable, the contribution to visual methodology has to do more with how varied conceptual views can work in conjunction to excavate deeper, more textured meanings in visual narratives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.249 · 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