MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113809065 · doi:10.1177/1468794120980975

The Face in Visual Representations of Children

2020· article· en· W3113809065 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)PoliticsSociologyVisual culturePsychologyEpistemologyAestheticsSocial scienceAnthropologyLawPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I take on the problem of the face in images and visual research on children. This is a problem that is engendered through the visual representations of children and the act of deploying the visualizing techniques associated with visual methods (pictures, video, etc.). It nevertheless is a problem, I argue, that has been couched singularly within a question of ethics in child studies, criminology, and sociology, among other disciplines. Here, I utilize the work of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari to challenge the unquestioned ethical commitment to the pixilation of children’s faces in publications. To trouble and reconceptualize the problem of visual representations of children, I assert that this problem is intimately connected to the cultural politics of childhood. For illustrative purposes, I analyze how children are represented in Today’s Child advertisements and Roman Vishniac’s Children of a Vanished World. This article concludes with a broader discussion of the (child’s) face, digital images, and (micro)politics.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.273 · 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