Doing Participatory Action Research in a Racist World
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
This exploration of the racial power dynamics in a participatory action research project with women who had experienced intimate partner violence discusses the challenges inherent in doing participatory action with antiracist intent and offers suggestions for overcoming these challenges. To engage in this type of research, explicit commitment to the goals of an antiracist intent needs to be shared as widely as possible. Fostering such shared commitment demands that the social locations of all involved be interrogated continuously. Such interrogation, however, needs to be prefaced with understanding that individuals are not representative of particular power positions or social identities or locations and with critical attention to how language and social structures shape racism and other forms of dominance. Being inclusive must be understood as complex and the influence of diverse agendas and perspectives acknowledged and taken into account. In the face of such complexity, "success" in research may need redefinition.
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 | 0.138 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 it