MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026559226 · doi:10.14288/1.0390959

Reading the cuts : a novel postman digital visual methodology for examining images of the self on social media

2020· article· en· W3026559226 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Margaret Warfield

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Social mediaComputer sciencePsychologyVisual mediaComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAestheticsMultimediaInternet privacyArtLinguisticsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation presents a novel posthuman digital visual methodology for studying digital self-imaging practices on social media. The method considers digital images, the images they produce, and the audiences to whom the images are shared not as distinct entities but rather as entangles assemblages of material, discursive, and affective forces that intra-act together to create digital imaging phenomena. Reading the Cuts draws on the work of Karen Barad, Don Ihde, and Gayle Salamon as the foundation of the methodology. The dissertation provides an overview of literature written about selfies or digital self-images shared on social media. It then provides a posthuman narrative of the becoming of the paradigms that have come to shape how we think about the relationship between digital images and digital subjectivities. The dissertation then narrates how the Reading the Cuts came to be, theoretically, and positions itself as contributing to both classic qualitative visual methods and post qualitative methodologies. Reading the Cuts as a methodology aims to provide a posthuman approach to visual methods that challenges typical representational modes of analyzing images in social media spaces by studying the becoming of digital self-images.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207