MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599068159

Community-Engaged Scholarship: Critical Junctures in Research, Practice, and Policy

2012· article· en· W1599068159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa Wenger, Linda Hawkins, Sarena D. Seifer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of higher education outreach & engagement/Journal of higher education outreach and engagement. · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipEngaged scholarshipPublic relationsCommunity engagementSociologyPolitical scienceDisciplineHigher education policyRelevance (law)Higher educationEducation policySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.273
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2730.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0620.252
Scholarly communication0.0880.070
Open science0.0080.057
Research integrity0.0380.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of higher education outreach & engagement/Journal of higher education outreach and engagement.Same topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207