MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337403091 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1170184

Participatory visual methodologies in global public health

2016· article· en· W2337403091 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Mitchell, Marni Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen journalismParticipatory GISPublic healthVisual researchParticipatory designGlobal healthParticipatory action researchPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Introduction serves to map out a range of participatory visual approaches, as well as critical issues related to the use of participatory visual methodologies in global health. In so doing, it offers both an overview of these innovative practices in global health and a consideration of some of the key questions that researchers might ask themselves in design and implementation.

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.039
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.859
GPT teacher head0.708
Teacher spread0.151 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations97
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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