Community-Engaged Scholarship: Critical Junctures in Research, Practice, and Policy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-engaged scholarship and community-academic partnerships are gaining momentum in higher education institutions. Federal research funding agencies in Canada have moved aggressively toward increasing support for community-engaged research and knowledge mobilization efforts. Yet there is a well-articulated disjuncture between calls for social relevance, knowledge translation and mobilization, community-based research, service-learning, and engagement more broadly; and the resources, structures, and policies in Canadian universities. In November 2010, the University of Guelph and Community-Campus Partnerships for Health convened national and international leaders from diverse organizational and disciplinary backgrounds to consider what is known about community-engaged scholarship in higher education and its implications for future research, practice, and policy. Participants identified conceptual challenges, values and tensions, opportunities for action, and resources to support community-engaged scholarship.
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.
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 | 0.065 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it