MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769996378 · doi:10.1177/1609406917736668

The Fringe Value of Visual Data in Research

2017· article· en· W2769996378 on OpenAlexaff
Kerstin Roger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual researchPhotovoiceValue (mathematics)Visual cultureResearch dataMandateData scienceComputer scienceVisual artsPolitical scienceData curationArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual data are everywhere. This article explores the ambiguous role of visual data in academia by reflecting on a series of photovoice studies conducted by the author over several years. While academia proposes to have an innovative mandate for exploring what is new, in fact, visual data have not yet been accepted as a viable form of research. Five studies will assist the reader in reflecting on this topic. It is clear that the power of the visual image permeates our contemporary culture, however, this article explores how visual data may better be integrated and utilized in research.

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)0.148
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1480.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0140.102
Scholarly communication0.0380.058
Open science0.0040.028
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.990
GPT teacher head0.891
Teacher spread0.099 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207