MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897150988 · doi:10.36510/learnland.v10i1.737

Using the Visual to Address Gender-Based Violence in Rural South Africa: Ethical Considerations

2016· article· en· W2897150988 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Astrid Treffry-Goatley, Lisa Wiebesiek, Relebohile Moletsane

Bibliographic record

VenueLEARNing Landscapes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaInternational Development Research CentreUnited Nations Population FundUNICEF
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)IndigenousContext (archaeology)Participatory action researchHarmVisual researchPhotovoiceCitizen journalismPolitical sciencePopulationResource (disambiguation)CriminologySocioeconomicsGeographyGender studiesSociologyEconomic growthComputer securityLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Violence against women and girls (VAW) is a critical issue of global importance. Research suggests that indigenous girls and young women from resource-poor, rural communities are particularly susceptible to VAW and yet, few studies directly target this vulnerable population group due to ethical considerations. We present some emerging ndings from rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, where we are using participatory visual research with girls and young women to investigate VAW in this context. Our results suggest while ethical issues may arise in the application of participatory visual tools in contexts of vulnerability, it is still possible to proceed without harm and to gain pertinent insight into this important issue.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.095 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLEARNing LandscapesSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207