Collaborating for community food security: Emerging scholar participation in a community–university partnership
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
In recent years, there has been rapid growth in community–university partnerships. As part of this trend, emerging scholars, including graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, have demonstrated significant interest in being part of community-engaged research projects. However, while there is a growing body of literature on the general subject of CU partnerships, the perspective of emerging scholars is not adequately addressed. In this paper, we aim to address that gap by presenting the case of a specific partnership – one that focused on the issue of community food security – and highlighting the role played by emerging scholars. We suggest that some of the challenges and opportunities characteristic of CU work affect emerging scholars, and the partnerships in which they are involved, in unique ways. Because we view emerging scholar participation in engaged research as valuable for both researchers and community partners, we argue in favour of developing institutional spaces that can support their involvement in CU partnerships by providing opportunities to do the work, facilitating skill building and creating communities of practice.
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 | 0.023 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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