Photo-Based Evaluation: A Method for Participatory Evaluation With Adolescents
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actively engaging adolescents in meaningful program evaluation is a topic of growing interest. One possibility for such engagement is the use of photographs as part of visual evaluation, so that youth can directly engage with the research process. In this Method Note, we describe the development and implementation of a participatory, photo-based evaluation method for youth health promotion/prevention programs. Youth in this study were participants in a gender-transformative healthy relationships program for boys. We present literature supporting the use of photographs as a visual research method and for involving youth as active participants in evaluation, and explore the feasibility, utility, and acceptability of this innovative application of existing methods based on researcher experience and youth feedback. We conclude with implications for photo-based evaluation of health promotion/prevention programs, highlighting the promise of this method for promoting critical youth engagement in evaluation and the creation of meaningful knowledge translation tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.085 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it