Working together in special needs parenting: An innovative research dissemination project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research findings are often inaccessible to those who need them and knowledge sharing between researchers, practitioners and community groups can be impeded by organizational, role and priority differences. This paper presents a university-community project designed to make research knowledge available to diverse users, facilitate their input, and build connections between diverse communities impacted by child disability. A team of Canadian researchers, social workers and community partners held workshops to discuss findings of a study on parenting adopted children with special needs and share research knowledge on advocacy for children with disabilities. Parents, service providers, professionals and organizations from disability and adoption communities met together in small mixed role groups to discuss the issues raised and identify priorities. Workshop material was captured to produce practical audio-visual and print documents, which were made available at no cost to all those who could use them. Formative and summative workshop evaluation concluded that project goals were achieved primarily because of ongoing community involvement and a respectful, open climate which encouraged sharing of expertise across roles and disciplines. Reflections of team members and community partners add data on the usefulness and challenges of this type of collaborative project.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".