MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293192080 · doi:10.22230/src.2022v13n2a431

Creating On Method: Translating Scholarly Research on Methods

2022· article· en· W4293192080 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mary Elizabeth Luka, Annette Markham, Laine Rettmer, Andrea Merkx

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilmmakingContext (archaeology)SociologyHumanitiesLibrary scienceComputer scienceArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On Method is a collaborative knowledge-translation project that combines critical pedagogy with arts and independent-filmmaking production strategies to develop compelling video content for researchers. In this article, the authors analyze four key principles of research translation contributing to the successful creation of On Method, a nine-episode video textbook that explores key concepts and approaches in qualitative methods. The principles include how to assemble a strong team; how iteration works in this context; the collaborative nature of the process; and building content for varied audiences. On Method aims to update previous media-based approaches to education by showcasing a primarily virtual production process that generated rich content to attract media-savvy audiences to a consideration of qualitative methods in the digital sphere and to build critical thinking in the public sphere. RÉSUMÉ On Method est un projet collaboratif d’application des connaissances qui associe la pédagogie critique à des stratégies de production artistique et cinématographique indépendante afin de développer un contenu vidéo qui soit attirant pour les chercheurs. Dans cet article, les auteurs analysent quatre principes clés de l’application de la recherche qui ont contribué à la réussite de On Method, un manuel vidéo en neuf épisodes qui explore les principaux concepts et approches des méthodes qualitatives. Ces principes sont : la constitution d’une équipe solide, l’utilité de l’itération dans ce contexte, la valeur d’une approche collaborative, et la création d’un contenu ciblant des publics variés. La série On Method vise à mettre à jour les approches médiatiques antérieures envers l’éducation en se fondant sur un processus de production essentiellement virtuel qui a généré un contenu riche dans le but de motiver les publics versés dans les médias à réfléchir sur les méthodes qualitatives dans la sphère numérique. On Method vise en outre à contribuer à la pensée critique dans la sphère publique.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.110
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1100.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.029
Scholarly communication0.0200.019
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.865
GPT teacher head0.759
Teacher spread0.106 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207