Photovoice and Persons With Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photovoice is a group analysis method often affiliated with participatory action research (PAR). It has become increasingly popular in qualitative research with people with physical disabilities. This article details the results of a study that sought to understand the scope of the literature related to how photovoice is conducted with people with physical disabilities. We performed a scoping review related to use of photovoice in physical disabilities research. We identified 20 articles that featured diverse participants with physical disabilities and demonstrated a range of approaches to data collection, analysis, and dissemination. Nearly all of the articles identified used photovoice to study physical accessibility/navigation of space. Although a majority of selected articles purported to use PAR approaches, many articles demonstrated research that may not be as participatory as presumed. Based on the findings, we provide suggestions for photovoice studies that will ensure full and meaningful participation of members involved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it