Using Reflective Process in Community-based Participatory Action Research
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
Using principles of transformational leadership, the management team of a Community Care Program (CCP) in British Columbia, Canada involved its staff, clients, and community agency personnel in a participatory action research process to evaluate the CCP's in-home nursing and physio/occupational programs. An iterative reflective process was initiated by the management team and expanded to include all stakeholders. We used a descriptive design with multiple analytic methods. CCP clients, agency personnel, and physicians were surveyed for their perceptions of whether CCP staff practised according to their core program values. Findings revealed minor discrepancies between the CCP's espoused values and those they practised with clients and agency personnel. An important outcome of this study was demonstrating the power and effectiveness of active participation by professional staff, consumers, and agency partners in all aspects of change within a traditional bureaucratic system.
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 | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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