MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326487598 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1169307

What’s a Cellphilm? Integrating mobile phone technology into participatory visual research and activism

2016· article· en· W2326487598 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile phoneVisual researchCitizen journalismParticipatory designMobile technologySociologyPhoneParticipatory action researchInternet privacyPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychologyMobile deviceWorld Wide WebLinguisticsVisual artsEngineeringArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In its simplest definition, cellphilm is a word derived from the hybridisation of cellphone and film; however, the answer to the question ‘What is a Cellphilm?’ proves to be much more evasive. The ...

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.031
Scholarly communication0.0150.019
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.644
GPT teacher head0.678
Teacher spread0.033 · 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
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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207