Moving images, Moving Methods: Advancing Documentary Film for Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the widespread use of digital media as a tool for documentation, creation, preservation, and sharing of audio-visual content, new strategies are required to deal with this type of “data” for research and analysis purposes. This article describes and advances the methodological process of using documentary film as a strategy for qualitative inquiry. Insights are drawn from a multimedia study that explored Inuit-caribou relationships in Labrador, Canada, through the co-production of community-based, research-oriented, participatory documentary film work. Specifically, we outline: 1) the influence of documentary film on supporting the project conceptualization and collaboration with diverse groups of people; 2) the strength of conducting filmed interviews for in-depth data collection, while recognizing how place and activities are intimately connected to participant perspectives; and 3) a new and innovative analytical approach that uses video software to examine qualitative data, keep participants connected to their knowledge, and simultaneously work toward creating high impact storytelling outputs. The flexibility and capacity of documentary film to mobilize knowledge and intentionally create research outputs for specific target audiences is also discussed. Continued and future integration of documentary film into qualitative research is recommended for creatively enhancing our abilities to not only produce strong, rich, and dynamic research outputs, but also simultaneously to explore and communicate diverse knowledges, experiences, and stories.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.325 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".