MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012455888 · doi:10.1177/1359105313500264

Trust the process: Community health psychology after Occupy

2013· article· en· W2012455888 on OpenAlex
Flora Cornish, Cristián Montenegro, Kirsten van Reisen, Flavia Zaka, James Sevitt

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity psychologyAction (physics)Process (computing)Public relationsSociologySocial psychologyCommunity healthHealth psychologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic healthMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that community health psychology's core strategy of 'community mobilisation' is in need of renewal and proposes a new way of conceptualising community health action. Taking the Occupy movement as an example, we critique modernist understandings of community mobilisation, which are based on instrumental action in the service of a predetermined goal. Aiming to re-invigorate the 'process' tradition of community health psychology, we explore possibilities of an open-ended, anti-hierarchical and inclusive mode of community action, which we label 'trusting the process'. The gains to be made are unpredictable, but we suggest that the risk is worth taking.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.421 · 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