Doing participatory qualitative research: development of a shared critical consciousness with racial minority research advisory group members
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
Partnership and principles of self-determination, equity, and social justice are keys to community-based participatory research that aims to break down barriers between the researchers and researched. Because community partners are valued as equal contributors to the research project, research advisory groups consisted of members of the community researched are essential to this approach. We discuss the challenges that arose in our first meeting with research advisory group members, where discussions of experiences of racism, in sharing the topic of the research, were initiated with youth from a diverse racialized community. We discuss the ‘development of a shared critical consciousness’, one that incorporated both the researcher’s reaction and the research advisory group members’ development (from initial resistance to critical consciousness). This approach respects the richness of the growth process during research, values the contributions of the researchers and the researched, and via the dialogical process captures contribution in a way that does not finalize or determine people.
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 | 0.436 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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