“Hear(ing) New Voices”: Peer Reflections from Community-Based Survey Development with Women Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS) engaged in an innovative community-based survey development process. OBJECTIVES: We sought to provide 1) an overview of the survey development process, and 2) personal reflections from women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; "peers") on their own observations of strengths and short-comings of the process and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: Guided by the principles of community-based research (CBR) and meaningful involvement of women living with HIV (WLWH), CHIWOS coordinated a national, multidisciplinary research team, and facilitated a community based survey development process. LESSONS LEARNED: Four key lessons emerged highlighting the importance of 1) accommodating different preferences for feedback collection, 2) finding the right combination of people and skills, 3) formalizing mentorship, and 4) creating guidelines on survey item reduction and managing expectations from the outset. CONCLUSIONS: Peers discussed the strengths and weaknesses of participatory methodologies in survey development.
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 | 0.076 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".