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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.720
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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