MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394607931 · doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00570-6

Digital storytelling online: a case report exploring virtual design, implementation opportunities and challenges

2024· article· en· W4394607931 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth Mansfield, Nafeesa Jalal, R. T. Sanderson, Geeta Shetty, Andrea Hylton, Chelsea D’Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsBrampton Civic HospitalSeneca PolytechnicTrillium Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersTrillium Health Partners Foundation
KeywordsStorytellingDigital storytellingNarrativeMultimediaComputer scienceProcess (computing)Interactive storytelling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital storytelling is an arts-informed approach that engages short, first-person videos, typically three to five minutes in length, to communicate a personal narrative. Prior to the pandemic, digital storytelling initiatives in health services research were often conducted during face-to-face workshops scheduled over multiple days. However, throughout the COVID-19 lockdowns where social distancing requirements needed to be maintained, many digital storytelling projects were adapted to online platforms. METHODS: As part of a research project aiming to explore the day surgery treatment and recovery experiences of women with breast cancer in Peel region, we decided to pivot our digital storytelling process to an online format. During the process, we observed that the online digital storytelling format had multiple opportunities and challenges to implementation. RESULTS: This paper outlines our promising practices and lessons learned when designing and implementing an online digital storytelling project including pre-production, production and post-production considerations. CONCLUSIONS: We provide lessons learned for future teams intending to conduct an online digital storytelling project.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.782
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207