Open Documentary Platforms Enabling Forms of Democratization and Community Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increase in open documentary projects on the web providing platforms for those affected by social problems to tell their stories. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, they gained significance as collaborative projects responding to pressing questions. They offered virtual spaces for community interaction and the interactive negotiation of meanings and perceptions of reality as face-to-face interactions on the ground became unfeasible. As networks of mutual support in times of uncertainty, they responded to the various needs of many people worldwide and avoided a hierarchical approach in favor of participatory, partly dialogical practices and a polyphonic form of presentation. This makes them compelling examples for discussing the democratic potentials and social-communicative functions of interactivity on such documentary platforms. This contribution analyzes two documentary projects: Corona Haikus (initiated by Sandra Gaudenzi and Sandra Tabares-Duque, 2020), launched as a Facebook group for visual poetry referring to the reality of the lockdowns and documenting the experiences during isolation, and Corona Diaries (initiated by Francesca Panetta et al., 2020), a database for voice recordings. The paper argues that interactivity in the two examples, first of all, fosters democratic processes on the level of production and decision-making processes as well as on the level of meaning construction; further – as an adjacent claim – the contribution suggests that the projects as complex assemblages allowed for the experience of virtual communities. By combining material and praxeological analyses and drawing on approaches from political theory, philosophy, and social sciences in addition to the media studies-oriented analyses, the paper identifies the transformative dimension of collaborative interactive documentaries, especially in times of crisis. Despite different medial approaches with additional advantages – visual poetry that encourages reflection and intimate voice recordings that enable effectively attentive listening –both platforms function as a medial in-between that enables collective identification and solidarity forms. The difference between Corona Haikus and Corona Diaries is: that Corona Haikus uses the democratic potentials of the interactive communication network for collective negotiations of meanings, dialogue, and co-creation, while Corona Diaries focuses more on low participation thresholds for a – in terms of content – highly open space, which in turn does not allow for interactions among the participants. What the projects have in common is that the active participation in the open space without the classical hierarchies between professional media makers and subjects, the collective narrative processes, and the sharing of emotions can lead to the feeling of being part of a developing community, which in turn can help individual participants to cope with their experiences. Additionally, the nonlinear, polyphonic platforms open up new perspectives and relations not seen before. Another result of the paper is that future research should differentiate more nuancedly between forms of participation rather than arguing based on an artificial distinction between interactivity and participation.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".