O Comitê Cidadão como estratégia cogestiva em uma pesquisa participativa no campo da saúde mental
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 theme of users' rights has become a central issue in contemporary debate on mental health. Drawing from the experiences of "Comitê Cidadão" (Citizen Committee), consisting of users and family members in an international research alliance between Brazil and Canada, an attempt is made to discuss the effects of the experience of co-management of the so-called Autonomous Medication Administration (GAM - Gestão Autônoma da Medicação) participatory research project on these individuals. By means of a detailed description of the background of the Committee and interviews and analysis of the voice transcriptions of its members, the problems raised by the relation of dialogue between scientific knowledge and users' knowledge are examined in a methodological approach of participatory research. As a result of the research, it was established that the experience of the Citizens Committee in co-management of health research can be propitious to the increase in the degree of autonomy, greater empowerment and the exercise of leadership and citizenship, with the consequent emergence of subjects with rights.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.044 |
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