Appraising and Funding Participatory Research in Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory action research combines research, education and social action. Each of these elements reflects health education research and practice. Indeed, health education, health promotion and participatory research have converged in these respects. Participatory research is well suited to the philosophies and theories underpinning community-based health education and health promotion. The nature of participatory research is such that funding agencies, especially those awarding research funds, tend to be challenged in their attempts to assess proposals. This is true at least for those agencies operating under traditional criteria for reviewing standards, which may not be appropriate for participatory research. As well, it may reflect a broader lack of common understanding about the processes and expectations, the apparent untidiness of projects (comparing with traditional research) which by their nature offer no standard methods, deadlines, procedures or predetermined outcome measures. The Study of Participatory Research in Health Promotion [1], commissioned by the Royal Society of Canada, attempted to clarify the topic by providing a working definition and a set of guidelines for use by funding agencies when appraising projects purporting to be participatory research. The guidelines emphasize how the nominal ways of conducting health research in populations need to adapt to meet the educational and policy expectations of participatory research. The study also examined current practical examples of participatory research in the field of health promotion in Canada. This summary of the results of the project provides detailed guidelines flowing from a review of experience in the field and consultation with groups engaged in participatory research.
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 | 0.741 | 0.759 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".