Participatory Action Research, Mental Health Service User Research, and the Hearing (our) Voices Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I discuss participatory action research as a framework for enabling people diagnosed with mental health problems to carry out research and in doing so to promote health equity, citizenship, and social justice for people with a mental health diagnosis. The participatory approach to research aims to involve ordinary community members in generating practical knowledge about issues and problems of concern to them and through this promoting personal and social change. The article traces the development of participatory action research and describes its application in the mental health service user research movement. The Hearing (our) Voices projects, participatory research projects carried out in Calgary, Alberta by a group of people diagnosed with schizophrenia, are described to illustrate this approach to mental health research. Participation in research to promote health equity is about inclusion and about how marginalized people can claim full and equal citizenship as participants in and contributors to society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.197 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".