Towards Sensorial Approaches to Visual Research with Racially Diverse Young Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a collaborative ethnographic research project that highlights the artistic, literary contributions of racially diverse young men. It uses Critical Race Theory to question conventional, Eurocentric educational approaches that historically and currently continue to suppress various socially and culturally learned modes of communication. This article presents two research projects in urban and suburban formal and informal educational institutions to highlight multimodal literary approaches. The first project is an amalgamation of two critical, ethnographic case studies that explores how racially diverse young men express their literacy through rap and spoken word poetry. The second project uses ethnographic methods to observe racially diverse young men’s production of films and photographs in high school, community centers, and art gallery spaces. This study uses visual methods coupled with affect and sensory-laden approaches to collect data and conduct an analysis. The article reflects on conversations surrounding young men, particularly racialized young men, their relationship with literacy, and how these conversations are founded on their failure and deficit language about their literacy repertoires. We believe that such research is closely tied with other social justice themes and modes of inquiry. This article steers away from the ways racialized young men do not use literacy, and focuses instead on the ways that they do use literacy. Their literacy practices are predominantly visual in nature, frequently accompanied by other modes such as words and moving images. Fitting within the scope of the special issue on social justice and visual methods, we argue for a greater acknowledgement and analytical gaze on sensory and affective nuances within visual research. This approach adds texture and volume to interpreting racialized young men’s narratives. Interrogating their visuals and talking through their narratives that have agentive qualities gives both researchers an awareness of young men’s emotional worlds, and how the visual allows for sense-laden, agentive meaning-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".