MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739530871 · doi:10.1177/1468794117722193

The iSquare protocol: combining research, art, and pedagogy through the draw-and-write technique

2017· article· en· W2739530871 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)Dimension (graph theory)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces the iSquare protocol, a novel application of the draw-and-write technique. The protocol was developed in the field of information science to explore the visual dimension of information and as an alternative and complement to written definitions of information that dominate the literature. In addition to generating a new visual perspective on information, the approach has proven fruitful for artistic and pedagogical purposes. Here, the protocol is presented in detail for scholars within information science and those beyond who may adapt it to their own research questions. The article begins with an overview of the draw-and-write technique, followed by a history of its use in the iSquare Research Program. Then, the distinguishing features of the iSquare protocol, its artistic potentials and teaching applications are outlined. Links are provided to an instructional script and research instrument template, enabling turnkey implementation of the method.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.527
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.087 · 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