Enacting a framework for community development: Engagement and outcomes for students and faculty co-researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy community development in cities, workplaces and educational settings has been the focus of considerable research, policy and practice activity. Healthy community development emphasizes changing health determinants. While the theory is appealing, engaging community members to translate theory into action is challenging. This paper outlines a framework for healthy community development which brings together cross-sector community members to change health determinants. Use of the VOICE framework in a long term project with a university campus is described. In the project, campus community members work as co-researchers to assess the health of the community, identify priority issues, mobilize existing resources, and create health-promoting change. Project achievements have included improvements in campus community health and increases in research and healthy community development capacity of all types of co-researchers. This paper focuses on the engagement of students and faculty as co-researchers and outcomes for each group from participation. Outcomes for non-academic co-researchers (other community members) are briefly described. Related literature on community service learning and undergraduate student researchers is reviewed. Other campuses and communities can easily adapt the VOICE framework and engagement strategies to change health determinants in their settings.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".