MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106787271 · doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801209

Photovoice: A participatory method for information science

2011· article· en· W2106787271 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

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoicePhoto elicitationPaceParticipatory action researchInformation literacyCommunity-based participatory researchCitizen journalismField (mathematics)Process (computing)Medical educationSociologyKnowledge managementPsychologyPublic relationsData sciencePedagogyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To keep pace with the social reality created by a Web 2.0 world, contemporary research studies must employ participatory research methods. Photovoice has emerged from the fields of health and community assessment studies as a photo elicitation technique that facilitates participant involvement at all stages of the research process. This poster presents Photovoice as used in an ongoing longitudinal research study assessing the information literacy (IL) skills of students as they transition from high school to university. The poster highlights how this research method can be employed in research practices across the field of information science with a focus on studies of individuals' use of, and engagement with technology.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.235 · 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