‘Community control’ in CBPR: Challenges experienced and questions raised from the Trans PULSE project
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
Newer forms of community-based participatory research (CBPR) prioritize community control over community engagement, and articles that outline some of the challenges inherent in this approach to CBPR are imperative in terms of advancing knowledge and practice. This article outlines the community control strategy utilized by Trans PULSE, an Ontario-wide research initiative devoted to understanding the ways in which social exclusion, cisnormativity (the belief that transgender (trans) identities or bodies are less authentic or ‘normal’), and transphobia shape the provision of services and affect health outcomes for trans people in Ontario, Canada. While we have been successful in building and supporting a solid model of community control in research, challenges have emerged related to: power differentials between community and academic partners, unintentional disempowerment of community members through the research process, the impact of community-level trauma on team dynamics, and differing visions about the importance and place of anti-racism work. Challenges are detailed as ‘lessons learned’ and a series of key questions for CBPR teams to consider are offered.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it