MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385341401 · doi:10.1080/1472586x.2023.2230466

Elaborated images as decolonial praxis

2023· article· en· W4385341401 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

VenueVisual Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisPolyphonyHonourCitizen journalismSociologyMeaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)Futures contractVisual artsGenerative grammarAestheticsEpistemologyArtComputer scienceHistoryPhilosophyArtificial intelligencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among lens-based artists and educators, the generative potential of annotating photographs, especially in participatory contexts, is commonly understood. Responding to a lack of cohesive labelling and description of these practices in the literature, the authors identify them as elaborated images and categorise how the method operates. Elaborated images unsettle the authoritative perspective of the photographer, since, by layering their reactions directly atop the photograph, participants actively disrupt static notions of meaning. We argue that elaborated images as a visual method can enable researchers to emphasise polyphony, honour refusal, support truth-telling, contribute to the restoration of relationships, and imagine alternative futures. We draw on the participatory art practices of a growing number of social documentary photographers and consider what their approaches could bring to visual research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.665
GPT teacher head0.730
Teacher spread0.065 · 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