Sensory Methodologies and Methods: A Scoping Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review examines the application of sensory research methodologies and methods in primary research, guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework. The scoping review addresses two primary questions: (1) what is the extent and nature of research activities that use multisensory methodologies and (2) what is the extent and nature of research activities that use multisensory methods? The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist was used to guide the reporting and mapping process. A total of 80 sources (45 peer-reviewed articles and 35 dissertations) met the inclusion criteria. Findings reveal ethnographic-based methodologies were the most common sensory approach, whereas combined visual and audio methods were the most commonly used techniques. There is the potential for more innovative and inclusive methodologies and methods to expand the use of taste and smell, which remain underrepresented in the literature. Additionally, greater attention is needed to address power dynamics and reflexivity in sensory research to avoid essentializing or misrepresenting participants’ experiences. Future research could improve methodological clarity and consistency while emphasizing accessibility and community engagement. This scoping review contributes to the field of sensory research by synthesizing current practices and identifying gaps that warrant future exploration, particularly in underrepresented sensory modalities.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it