MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974720703 · doi:10.1353/cpr.2007.0010

Community-Based Participatory Research: Lessons From Sharing Results With the Community: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project

2007· article· en· W1974720703 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ann C. Macaulay, Amy Ing, Jon Salsberg, Amelia McGregor, Chantal Saad-Haddad, Joyce Rice, Lois Montour, Katherine Gray‐Donald

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in community health partnerships · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCommunity-based participatory researchParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismCommunity healthCommunity participationPolitical scienceMedicineSociologyNursingPublic healthSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP) is an ongoing, community-based participatory research project with an Aboriginal community in Canada, promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To document lessons learned from sharing results with the community, and analyzing feedback from attendees. METHODS: In 2004, a researcher-community team delivered 16 sessions of a contextualized presentation of data collected from 1994 to 2002. The team documented the resulting questions and discussions, attendees completed anonymous questionnaires including open-ended questions, and presenters summarized their impressions. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one people attended the presentations and question/discussion periods were summarized. One hundred sixty-two (82%) of attendees (87% female), completed the questionnaires; 99% understood the presentations and 142 (88%) stated they intended to improve their lifestyles. Qualitative analysis of discussions and open-ended comments categorized attendees' comments about KSDPP, the 1994 through 2002 results, the community, and lifestyle habits. Lessons learned included the time needed to develop and make the presentations, the importance of using community knowledge to guide the experience, ways of attracting an audience, difficulty of reaching men, use of feedback from those attending the presentations, and the need to plan prospectively for analyzing attendee feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Community feedback was used to improve interventions and finalize interpretation of the results.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativehigh
gptScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.193
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1930.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0280.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0070.016
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.932
GPT teacher head0.721
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Scholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in community health partnershipsSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCategoryScholarly communicationFrench-language works237,207