MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412931057 · doi:10.1080/1472586x.2025.2537738

Copyright as an ethical dimension of visual research: preserving ownership across the research process

2025· article· en· W4412931057 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)Process (computing)SociologyVisual researchAestheticsLaw and economicsPsychologyBusinessVisual artsComputer scienceArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual research methods require researchers to consider ethical concerns around the ownership of visual artefacts created by participants like drawings or photographs. While previous research has called for a stronger focus on the ethical considerations in visual research methods, very little attention has been given to copyright as a dimension of ownership. This conceptual paper asserts that copyright comprises an ethical dimension of visual research methods. Based on the experiences of the authors with graphic elicitation, this paper will discuss how copyright plays a role throughout the research process, with recommendations for navigating the Institutional Review Board application, informed consent, and publication processes.

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 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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.836
GPT teacher head0.777
Teacher spread0.058 · 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