MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766048349 · doi:10.1080/23311983.2017.1396647

Ambiguity at play: Open-ended making used in mixed material-participatory research practice

2017· article· en· W2766048349 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Day Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Arts and Humanities · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsEmily Carr University of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogicAmbiguitySet (abstract data type)Citizen journalismSociologyParticipatory action researchEngineering ethicsParticipatory designPsychologyKnowledge managementPedagogyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design research is distinct from many other creative research practices in its capacity to not only help to identify/express deeper understandings of what is but also to provoke and provide meaningful alternatives/suggestions of what might be. This paper contextualizes design research methods pertinent to health concerns. A set of introductory exercises aimed at facilitating discussion and hands on experience with open-ended making tactics, which provide dialogic insight and inspiration, useful to researchers working in health-related spaces is detailed.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.039 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Arts and HumanitiesSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207