Weighing value: who decides what counts?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction This chapter is co-written by two people committed to adding the voice of community partners to the debate about the value of community–university research partnerships (CUPs). Our focus is on research partnerships and we are using the CUP acronym as shorthand. Within the UK there have been strong developments in supporting more sustained partnerships between universities and communities. The organisations we represent are at the forefront of these initiatives. Kim Aumann is a community practitioner with 12 years’ experience of CUP working in the UK and abroad, and was involved in setting up the UK Community Partner Network (UKCPN), and Sophie Duncan is Deputy Director of the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), which works to support universities to engage more effectively with the public, including providing international consultancy services and hosting the UKCPN. We believe that tapping into the experience and perspectives of community partners can help us improve the benefits of CUP working (Aumann, Duncan and Hart, 2014). Our work is internationally linked, while having a UK focus. To proactively explore how to encourage, support and facilitate effective use of CUPs to benefit society, between us we have conducted focused consultations and events with community partners (and academics); met and spoken with hundreds of community partners both in the UK and internationally; participated in international networks, including Community Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), the Living Knowledge Network, Global University Network for Innovation, Community Based Research Canada, UNESCO Chairs for Community Based Research, and Global Alliance for Community Engaged Research; worked with research funders; and facilitated national CUP projects. It is this direct experience and our reflections on practice that we draw on here. Our chapter is addressed to community partners and academics interested in CUP working. We are convinced that this way of working can produce more than individual partners can achieve on their own. However, we are conscious of the need to get better at articulating and evidencing the value and legacies of these ways of working if we are going to help protect the future of this form of knowledge creation and use. It is important that CUPs are an effective and appropriate use of public funding and that they do what they say they will do in a way that inspires confidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,038 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle