Issues of equity and empowerment in knowledge democracy: Three community based research examples
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
Participatory action research, particularly the Collaborative Inquiry methodology of Heron and Reason has great promise for knowledge democracy. However, an elegant methodology cannot always prepare the researcher for the reality of engaging with disempowered groups, or from stumbling in the unknown territory of marginalization. In this paper, I describe three examples of collaborative research, two with Aboriginal communities aimed at increasing access to health services and one with non-profit organizations aimed at increasing collaboration. Each case presented an opportunity to learn that, despite good intentions and collaborative processes, there remain issues we cannot anticipate. Our dilemmas and the ways in which my research colleagues, our community partners and I resolved the problems are described. I conclude with lessons learned from the three cases and reflections on validity, equity and empowerment.
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 | 0.053 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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