MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415968850 · doi:10.5430/wje.v6n3p48

The Use of Participatory Action Research within Education-Benefits to Stakeholders

2016· article· en· W2415968850 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Steven Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchAction researchCitizen journalismParticipatory evaluationResearch methodologyAction (physics)SociologyPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers a brief history and the characteristics of the research methodology known as Participatory ActionResearch (PAR). This paper also states how PAR can be utilized within an educational environment and describesthe benefits to all stakeholders such as teachers and students when they are involved in a research project using PARas the research methodology.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.030
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.941
GPT teacher head0.703
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations106
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207