MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544447834 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_2

Critical Participatory Action Research

2016· book-chapter· en· W2544447834 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismAction (physics)Communicative actionAction researchSolidarityPublic relationsSociologyCollective actionSocial practicePolitical scienceSocial sciencePedagogyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical participatory action research emerges from critique of conventional social and action research, recognizing that action research itself is a social practice—a practice changing practice. It arises when people share concerns and work together to make their individual and collective practices less irrational, unsustainable, and unjust. By participating in public spheres, participants create communicative action and communicative space—clarifying their concerns, informing changes in their practices, and creating communicative power and solidarity. Participants’ own analyses of their practices are supported by understanding practice architectures, local arrangements enabling or constraining their work. Changing a practice also involves changing practice architectures. Critical participatory action research differs from other research traditions because it supports participants changing “what is happening here” in disciplined, prudent, and informed ways.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.684
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.066 · 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