MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4396213930 · doi:10.32388/z0p2mo

Review of: "Working on the Root System of Social Connections in a Community"

2024· peer-review· en· W4396213930 sur OpenAlexaff
Alex Petric

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepeer-review
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueCommunity Health and Development
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRoot (linguistics)Computer scienceSociologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Potential competing interests: No potential competing interests to declare.Thank you for the opportunity to review this article.The findings reported from Deventer and Rotterdam are useful examples of the more conceptual portions of the paper, and of its focus on connections as relevant for community development (especially asset-based community development).However, I think the article's presentation is unfortunately lacking on several fronts.First, the framing of the arguments often appears simplistic, such as in the claim that "the vast majority of socioeconomic interventions and policies in Western societies are mile-wide, inch-deep, which is to say they are so general and spread so thin that while they may create waves at national, regional, or city scales".This (uncited) framing seems to discount progress made in previous initiatives, and it is so broad as to be unbelievable, especially when the suggested solution is to move from "having" modes to "being" modes, which appears somewhat vague.Second, some concepts are introduced without much clarity.There are discussions of the neighbourhood effect and the honeycomb effect, but unfamiliar readers may struggle to understand these ideas based on the text.For example, the neighbourhood effect is simply framed as an "inch-wide, mile-deep approach"; surely not any inch-wide, mile-deep approach would count?Defining these terms more clearly (possibly with examples) would help the reader.As well, ABCD is mentioned throughout, but it should be written out and defined when first discussed in the article.In addition, the authors mention social capital, which is a dense and widely-contested concept, but there is no definition of how the authors understand it, or how/whether it differs from social connections, associational life, etc.Third, the figures in the article could be better integrated.For an English publication, a translation of the Dutch text in one image would help, as would text to clarify why it is included (i.e., what does the image demonstrate?).The system diagram of multiple circles around "community" is also unclear; are the circles intended to connect to the layers mentioned in the article?If so, this could be more clearly noted in the text.I am also unsure how much the honeycomb diagram adds to the reader's understanding.Fourth, while the field data from Deventer is interesting, there is no description of its collection or analysis, which would be expected in a research paper.There is also mention of findings from Rotterdam, but how these two data are connected is unclear.For international readers, some context about Rotterdam and Deventer (general locations, sizes, character) would help.Fifth, there are several fields of research that connect quite strongly to this article, and situating the work in the broader Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 • Review, April 29, 2024 Qeios ID: Z0P2MO • https://doi.org/10.32388/Z0P2MO1/2 field would help demonstrate what is unique about this piece.For instance, similar ideas about overlapping/nested networks have been famously discussed by Christopher Alexander, and ideas of community engagement clearly link to Arnstein's ladder of participation, or to the broader fields of transactive planning or communicative planning.Lastly, as an aside, there are some grammatical errors remaining in the manuscript which should be resolved, and there appear to be some works which are mentioned but not cited in the text or the reference list.The use of metaphorical language can be very helpful in communicating ideas.The concept of a root system seems helpful as an image of how community connections are relevant for long-term sustainable community development.In my view, this article presents interesting ideas, but it seems necessary to better organize and clarify those ideas before publication.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,118

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,043
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,005
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0350,015

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,307
Tête enseignante GPT0,503
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetCommunity Health and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207