MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790966508 · doi:10.1080/14780887.2018.1442766

Choosing to enter the darkness - <i>a researcher’s reflection on working with suicide survivors</i>: A collage of words and images

2018· article· en· W2790966508 on OpenAlexaff
Yehudit Silverman

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research in Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabooSilenceFeelingMeaning (existential)ConstructivePsychologyAestheticsStorytellingMythologyFace (sociological concept)PsychoanalysisVisual artsNarrativeSociologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistProcess (computing)LiteratureArtSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to find constructive avenues for breaking the silence and taboo around suicide on both a personal and societal level. This collage of words and images is an iteration based on the extensive research that resulted in the award winning documentary film, The Hidden Face of Suicide. The film enters the world of survivors, those who lost family to suicide, and tells their remarkable stories through the use of mask making and interviews. The survivors expressed that the process of creating masks, telling their stories, and witnessing the positive audience response, gave them a sense of meaning and hope and decreased their feelings of being isolated and stigmatized. After screening the film to diverse audiences internationally, and upon further reflection on the making of the film and the audience responses, the author expresses the findings in another creative medium adding another layer to the tapestry of this process.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.888
GPT teacher head0.785
Teacher spread0.103 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research in PsychologySame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207