MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084598642 · doi:10.1177/16094069251381704

Co-Creating Visual Stories as an Arts-Based Method for Equity: Visualizing the Agency of Forcibly Displaced Students

2025· article· en· W7084598642 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsAffordanceAgency (philosophy)StorytellingEmbodied cognitionContext (archaeology)Power (physics)Lived experienceExpression (computer science)Narrative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrates the possibility of co-creation that invites participants into the artistic process itself, fostering shared ownership of knowledge production and enabling new forms of storytelling that bridge artistic expression and lived experience. We explore the affordances of co-creating illustrated stories by centering the previously unshared stories of families forcibly displaced by war and systemic violence. We engaged in workshops to co-create visual stories which integrate their pre- and post-migration experiences with schooling, especially in the context of mathematics learning. The co-created illustration reflects the participants’ desired ways of depicting gender and race, with nuanced depictions of their emotional journey, holding both the struggles and moments of joy. Extending art-based methods further, we discuss how the co-created stories could convey the participants’ embodied experiences and their everyday acts of exercising agency to address power and inequity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.453
GPT teacher head0.682
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207