MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195476514 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-596-3_2

Drawings as Research Method

2011· book-chapter· en· W2195476514 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Mitchell, Linda Theron, Jean Stuart, Ann Marie Smith, Zachariah Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual researchVisual artsThe artsCitizen journalismVisual methodsArtArt historySociologyPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of drawings in social research is located within several broad yet overlapping areas of contemporary study. These include arts-based or artsinformed research (Knowles & Cole, 2008), participatory visual methodologies (De Lange, Mitchell, & Stuart, 2007; Rose, 2001), textual approaches in visual studies in the social sciences (Mitchell, 2011), as well as the use of drawings in psychology. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.014

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 head0.778
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations177
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207