MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965315251 · doi:10.1177/1749975519855502

How Else Would You Take a Photo? #SelfieAmbivalence

2019· article· en· W2965315251 on OpenAlex
Maria-Carolina Cambre, Christine Lavrence

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural Sociology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityConcordia University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureConcordia University
KeywordsSelfieSocialityInvisibilitySociologyEmpowermentVisibilityMedia studiesFocus (optics)Social psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyVisual artsPolitical scienceComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Popular discourse describing selfies as the “narcissistic” 2 practice of teenagers or a tool of personal empowerment, minimize the structural constraints under which selfies operate as a ubiquitous mode of sociality. Based on focus group discussions in two Canadian cities, we explore how young adults describe their selfie experiences and explore three discursive tensions expressed in the transcripts. First, how questions of “control” were taken up; second, how “visibility” was understood as fragile, and animated by an anxiety of invisibility; third, the nature of “fun” that selfies generate. We conclude by exploring some of the epistemological shifts that these practices indicate.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.272 · 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