The Evolution of an Academic-Community Partnership in the Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Experience Corps(R) Baltimore City: A Courtship Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Experience Corps Baltimore City (EC) is a product of a partnership between the Greater Homewood Community Corporation (GHCC) and the Johns Hopkins Center on Aging and Health (COAH) that began in 1998. EC recruits volunteers aged 55 and older into high-impact mentoring and tutoring roles in public elementary schools that are designed to also benefit the volunteers. We describe the evolution of the GHCC-COAH partnership through the "Courtship Model." DESIGN AND METHODS: We describe how community-based participatory research principals, such as shared governance, were applied at the following stages: (1) partner selection, (2) getting serious, (3) commitment, and (4) leaving a legacy. RESULTS: EC could not have achieved its current level of success without academic-community partnership. In early stages of the "Courtship Model," GHCC and COAH were able to rely on the trust developed between the leadership of the partner organizations. Competing missions from different community and academic funders led to tension in later stages of the "Courtship Model" and necessitated a formal Memorandum of Understanding between the partners as they embarked on a randomized controlled trial. IMPLICATIONS: The GHCC-COAH partnership demonstrates how academic-community partnerships can serve as an engine for social innovation. The partnership could serve as a model for other communities seeking multiple funding sources to implement similar public health interventions that are based on national service models. Unified funding mechanisms would assist the formation of academic-community partnerships that could support the design, implementation, and the evaluation of community-based public health interventions.
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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".