MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980355672 · doi:10.4236/ojn.2012.22022

Towards building consensus: Revisiting key principles of CBPR within the First Nations/Aboriginal context

2012· article· en· W1980355672 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Regina
FundersInstitute of Aboriginal Peoples HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOperationalizationCognitive reframingGeneral partnershipCommunity-based participatory researchContext (archaeology)Participatory action researchSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEpistemologyPsychologyLawGeographySocial psychologyAnthropologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community based participatory research as a preferred approach to research with First Nations and Aboriginal communities has contributed to new terminologies, new methodologies, and new directions in research relationships. One of the ongoing challenges is to articulate and operationalize the principles for CBPR with these communities. This paper reflects on the nine principles articulated by LaVeaux and Christopher in the context of a long term community-academic research partnership at Standing Buffalo First Nations, Saskatchewan, Canada. Within this application, we begin to critique the various principles and to reframe these principles to increase their utility in informing community based research in the First Nations/Aboriginal context.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.559
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.102 · 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