Community health, community involvement, and community empowerment: Too much to expect?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Primary Prevention of Cancer Program at the British Columbia Cancer Agency Centre for the Southern Interior (BCCA‐CSI), known as the Waddell Project, is now five years old and currently is in partnership with fourteen regional communities. Each of these communities has a range of community‐developed programs currently in place. The driving force behind the Waddell Project comes from the belief that emancipatory change is central to community health. That is, only those communities that are capable of challenging, questioning, and creating change can make the cancer‐prevention decisions that are relevant, useful, and sustainable within the context of the daily lives of their members. The resulting model for the project was influenced by Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action, from which are derived the project's guiding concepts of equality, negotiated content, collaborative process, inclusion of critique, importance of action, and mutual accountability. In this article, these concepts are revisited from the unique contexts and perspectives of the collaborating participants. Implications would suggest that the processes adopted to support empowered community engagement in cancer prevention are, in many ways, more beneficial than the implementation of the resulting initiative itself. Furthermore, it would seem that, rather than funding, it is prolonged and supportive commitment that is the most crucial factor for facilitating emancipatory change in community health. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comm Psychol 32: 217–228, 2004.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".