Worth the Risk? Muddled Relationships in Community-Based Participatory Research
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
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that has two purposes: (a) to generate knowledge about and (b) to take action to improve the lives of people facing health, social, economic, political, and environmental inequities. The foundation of all CBPR projects is its partnership--its cooperative relationship between community members, service providers, program planners, policy makers, and academics. It is with people--and through relationships--that partnerships are built and sustained. Although relationships between academics and community members are critical to creating knowledge and change, they are overlooked in the literature. We often hear about CBPR "gone wrong," when tensions and conflicts arise because relationship boundaries become blurred. Our purpose is to expose the muddled relationships that can be created between academics and community members in CBPR projects. Drawing upon our experiences presented in a series of vignettes, we consider the nature of these relationships. We explore whether we conduct, in CBPR, good research at the expense of muddling relationships. Despite the potential for muddled relationships, we believe that CBPR is the best approach for research aimed at achieving a more equitable and just society.
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 | 0.703 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.007 |
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