Evaluation of a Community-Based Participatory Research Consortium From the Perspective of Academics and Community Service Providers Focused on Child Health and Well-Being
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
A process evaluation of a consortium of academic researchers and community-based service providers focused on the health and well-being of children and families provides empirical and practice-based evidence of those factors important for community-based participatory research (CBPR). This study draws on quantitative ratings of 33 factors associated with CBPR as well as open-ended questions addressing the benefits, facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for collaboration. Eight distinct but related studies are represented by 10 academic and 9 community researchers. Even though contextual considerations were identified between the academic and community partners, in large part because of their focus, organizational mandate and particular expertise, key factors for facilitating collaboration were found across groups. Both community and academic partners reported the following as very important for positive collaborations: trust and mutual respect; adequate time; shared commitment, decision making, and goals; a memorandum of understanding or partnership agreement; clear communication; involvement of community partners in the interpretation of the data and information dissemination; and regular meetings. The results are compared to current models of collaboration across different contexts and highlight factors important for CBPR with community service providers.
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 | 0.045 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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