MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400442057 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v52i3.55154

Ensemble Research: A Means for Immigrant Children to Explore Peer Relationships Through Fotonovela

2006· article· en· W4400442057 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael J. Emme, Anna Kirova, Oliver Kamau, Susan Kosanovich

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImmigrationEducational researchDevelopmental psychologyPeer reviewSocial psychologyMathematics educationGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work began with a question about the challenges of nonverbal communication across cultures for both immigrant children in Canadian schools and a community of researchers. The question led to the gathering of an ensemble of researchers that included both adults and children. This article represents that collaborative group’s approach to a research innovation focusing on the fotonovela as both a research tool and a product of the research process. Antecedent narratives tell of the research team’s diverse skills, which became resources for the visual inquiry of immigrant children into their first Canadian school experiences. Combining digital-documentary, tableau, and digital-image manipulation, the children created, reflected on, and responded to fotonovelas about their peer relationships. Their stories combine elements of the personal with social symbolic representations that result in multiple layers of identification for the students and other readers of their research. This layered narrative is discussed as a unique result of combining digitized photographic processes with the fotonovela format. It also provides insights into how the fotonovela format can be used as a research tool.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.421
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.085 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207