Pulling at All Threads: Reflections on Using Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis Within Arts-Based Health Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimodal critical discourse analysis is a dynamic approach to qualitative data analysis that expands critical discourse analysis to include multiple communicative modes-such as images, graphics, video, and sound/music-into the semiotic analysis of ideology and power relations within contemporary forms of communication. We reflect on the potential of multimodal critical discourse analysis to be combined with arts-based health research as an analytic method to deconstruct discourses that shape the health and well-being of marginalized communities. Specifically, we frame this potential within our research about men's body image based a project using cellphilming and the deconstruction of cis-heteronormative and related ideologies.
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 | 0.107 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".