MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118272611 · doi:10.1177/1077800408318421

Sketchy Rendering

2008· article· en· W2118272611 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Tamas

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeAestheticsSociologyEgalitarianismRepresentation (politics)EpistemologyRendering (computer graphics)Perspective (graphical)Visual artsComputer scienceArtPhilosophyLinguisticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This piece probes the limits and ethics of representation from the perspective of the scrutinized other. The author uses the lens of her experience as a figure drawing model to illuminate some of the foundational dilemmas in qualitative research. This evocative account examines issues of power, embodiment, purpose, expertise, egalitarianism, and mastery. What does our nakedness actually reveal? Why do we perform exposure? What are the obligations of the viewer? This chordal narrative considers the implications of our constructions of ourselves and others in the process of representation and concludes with suggestions for ethical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5020.146

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 head0.720
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.072 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207