MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183121318 · doi:10.20381/ruor-4554

Experiences of Governance in the Context of Community-Based Research: Structures, Problems and Theory

2011· dissertation· en· W2183121318 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Vivien Runnels

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceContext (archaeology)Political scienceSociologyEpistemologyManagement sciencePublic administrationGeographyEngineeringManagementEconomicsPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Governance is a response to a recognition that traditional forms of decision-making have become inadequate to address complex societal and health problems generated by significant social and global changes (Chhotray & Stoker, 2009). The contributions of scientific and technical knowledge towards solving these complex problems have also been recognized as insufficient (Jasanoff, 2007). Community-based research (CBR) is an approach to research which is designed to make use of the knowledge of community and university members and their participation and collaboration ―in all phases of the research process, with a shared goal of producing knowledge that will be translated into action or positive change for the community‖ (Lantz, Israel, Schulz & Reyes, 2006, p. 239). However, although the contributions of lay knowledge have been acknowledged, how governance or collaborative decision-making is arranged in the context of community-based research is not well described in the literature. In order to address this knowledge gap, a study was undertaken in which in-depth interviews were conducted with community and university members of Canadian CBR collaborations to determine their governing experiences. Results are reported in a thesis by research papers. The first paper focuses on describing the governance structures that CBR collaborations used. In the second paper, the nature and content of problems which occurred in governing CBR collaborations, point to the importance of theory for conceptualizing and solving governance problems. To develop a theory of participation in governance of community-based research, the third paper uses Arnstein‘s theory of participation to propose a grounded theoretical basis for implementing participation in governance of CBR collaborations (Arnstein, 1969). Governance is a means of organizing, shaping and steering a course of decision-making. Governance is a critical component in the organization of knowledge production. Study and theory of governance in community-based research may help in improving understanding and implementation of a critical population health practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207