MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2225868307

The role of consumers in participatory action research. A Canadian experience

2014· article· en· W2225868307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean‐François Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth issues · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCitizenshipAgency (philosophy)Project commissioningPublishingCitizen journalismPublic relationsCommunity-based participatory researchAction researchMental healthSociologyAction (physics)Political sciencePsychologySocial sciencePedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a consumer- and carer-run Canadian agency that specialises in Community-based Participatory Research for citizenship-oriented mental health policies and systems transformation. In order to emphasise how consumers can genuinely benefit from CBPR, this paper discusses the perspectives of a number of consumers who discussed their role in participatory research. The consumers participated in a study for developing a mobile application on a tablet computer at the Institut Universitaire en Sante Mentale de Montreal Canada, where the International Program for Participatory Action Research (IPPAR) is located. Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Institut Universitaire en Sante Mentale de Montreal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0410.040
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.661
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.046 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth issues→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→