Contribution of participatory action research to knowledge mobilization in mental health services for children and families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problems with knowledge mobilization (KMb) (also known as knowledge translation and implementation science) among providers of children and youth services may be addressed by looking to models of participatory action research (PAR) that are already familiar to those working in community-based services. In contexts such as these, where there is mistrust of traditional sources of expertise, PAR has the potential to provide a way to make it easier for the sharing and adoption of new practices. A case example of an evaluation of a community-based gang prevention program for children aged 9–14 is used to highlight how PAR can enhance program design and implementation based on the sharing of best practices and the active engagement of community members through a research advisory committee. This integration of PAR with KMb, though an imperfect attempt to share practice evidence, provides clues to the methodological techniques required for more participatory development and exchange of promising practices among providers of services for children and youth.
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 | 0.275 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".