Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing number of multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships designed to address real-world issues, little is known about their nature. This article describes the features and impacts of five research partnerships addressing health or social service issues, which constituted a convenience sample from the province of Ontario, Canada. The article describes their characteristics, ways of operating, outputs, types of requests received from community members and mid-term impacts. Requests directed to partnerships were tracked over a 10-month period in 2003 to 2004, using a research contact checklist, and 174 community members later completed an impact questionnaire capturing perceptions of the impacts of the partnerships on personal knowledge and research skill development, organisational/group access to and use of information, and community and organisational development. The data indicated that partnerships had similar priorities and magnitudes of mid-term impacts, yet differed in the scope of their partnering, realm of intended influence and the number of mechanisms used to engage and communicate with target audiences. The partnerships produced different types of outputs and received different types of requests from community members. The findings inform researchers about partnership diversity and help to establish more realistic expectations about the magnitude of partnerships' impacts.
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 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 | 0.033 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".