Partizipation in der Zusammenarbeit zwischen Zielgruppe, Projekt und Geldgeber
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
The intrinsic connection between empowerment and participation is apparent in the Ottawa Charter on Health Promotion. In order for citizens to reach a higher degree of autonomy and control over health-related factors (empowerment) they need to have an active role in the decision-making processes affecting their lives and the environment in which they live (participation). This implies that many decisions are made affecting the health of citizens over which they have no influence. The question is: Who has the power to make such decisions and how can this power be shared more equitably? This question can be raised not only at the highest political level, but also locally in the context of the collaboration between various stake-holders. The local level plays a key role in deciding which health promotion measures are developed and funded, thus contributing in an important way to strengthening communities. In this article the method "Circles of Decision-Making" is presented as a tool for assisting those working at the local level in determining to what degree the active participation of the various stake-holders has been achieved and in what ways the participation of those "on the outside" of decision-making processes can be strengthened. This method is based on the concept of Participatory Quality Development (PQD) created by the authors and their community partners. PQD uses methods from community-based research to address issues of quality in community-level health promotion and prevention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
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