THEORY AND METHODS Whiteboard animation for knowledge mobilization: a test case from the Slave River and Delta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To present the co-creation of a whiteboard animation video, an enhanced e-storytelling technique for relaying traditional knowledge interview results as narratives. Design. We present a design for translating interview results into a script and accompanying series of figures, followed by technical steps to create a whiteboard animation product. Method. Our project used content analysis and researcher triangulation, followed by a collaborative process to develop an animated video to disseminate research findings. A 13-minute long whiteboard animation video was produced from a research study about changing environments in northern Canadian communities and was distributed to local people. Three challenging issues in the video creation process including communica-tion issues, technical difficulties and contextual debate were resolved among the supporting agencies and researchers. Conclusions. Dissemination of findings is a crucial step in the research process. Whiteboard animation video products may be a viable and culturally-appropriate form of relaying research results back to Indigenous communities in a storytelling format.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".