Reflecting on community/academic `collaboration'
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
This article articulates many of the issues that feminist participatory action researchers confront in attempts to conduct collaborative research with community organizations and the state (see Brydon-Miller, McGuire, & McIntyre, 2004; Gatenby & Humphries, 2000; Reid, Tom, & Frisby, 2006; Sullivan, Bhuyan, Senturia, Shiu-Thornton, & Ciske, 2005). As recent PhD sociologists, the authors were hired as independent consultants by a provincial ministry 1 to evaluate an initiative to expand service provision to women who had experienced violence by their intimate partners. 2 Our analysis of what transpired during this consultancy experience is grounded in our participant observation and a reflective process in which we have engaged, periodically, over the past 10 years. During that time we have articulated, and re-articulated our `story', both informally and formally, through solitary and collaborative writing and rewriting endeavors. Our immersion in this process has yielded ever-evolving understandings of this life experience, and the passage of time has allowed us to refine an analysis because of the distance in time between now and our involvement. We begin by outlining our understanding of feminist participatory action research (FPAR) that informed our work with the ministry, followed by our story of what happened and our sociological analysis of that story.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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