Health via Art, Media, Storytelling: Design Implications of a Freirean Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The framework seeks to acknowledge and minimize risks of 1) simultaneous, negative health-impacts, and 2) reinforcing Freirean oppression and health inequalities via health-oriented media. Media can be accessed to resolve one’s complex landscape of socially-imposed tasks and self-determined tasks. Health messaging, therefore, may be present but deprioritized - when marginalized audiences face more pressing socially-imposed tasks such as basic livelihood. There is value in exploring and minimizing connotations in health media which reinforce social-impositions; glamorize potentially-harmful personal goals; and obfuscate the combined totality of tasks an individual faces. Additionally, health-media creators may consider how power and privilege is presented, as the overriding societal perspective is that power and privilege can resolve all tasks in life - thus entrenching individuals in pursuit of privilege over pursuit of health outcomes. The framework highlights that media may bring any of the negative impacts above while holding valid health messaging simultaneously. Furthermore, the same piece of health-media may not always bring identical levels of health-benefits to privileged and marginalized communities. How health media may reduce 1) inequitable distribution of health benefits and burdens according to existing inequalities and 2) eliminate unintended negative messaging which occur alongside positive messaging are outlined for consideration.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".