Community-Based Participatory Research: Lessons From Sharing Results With the Community: Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project
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
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | high |
| gpt | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.224 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.026 |
| 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 it