MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979961481 · doi:10.1093/cdj/bsh033

Community-university partnerships: Linking research and action for sustainable community development

2004· article· en· W1979961481 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Development Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipVariety (cybernetics)Action researchSustainable developmentCommunity developmentPublic relationsAction (physics)Sustainable communityQuality (philosophy)Community organizationPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-based research, which usually links university students and faculty with community groups in applied research projects, is gaining recognition as an effective mechanism for community-directed research and development. These partnerships can serve a variety of research, policy, educational and action goals. The nature of the outcomes also depends on the intensity, duration and quality of the partnership. Three types of partnership are described, with reference to the Sustainable Toronto project, which includes all three kinds of relationships under its general umbrella. Recommendations are made to encourage and sustain community–university partnerships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0830.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.401
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.018 · 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