Development of a Collaborative Research Framework: The Example of a Study Conducted By and With a First Nations, Inuit, and Metis Women's Community and Their Research Partners
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
The lack of research to effectively address inequity within Canadian society is an indicator of the failure of mainstream research approaches and practices to engage with all populations. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a collaborative framework defined by community members and their research partners as ethical, useful and relevant. Two essential phases in negotiating a collaborative framework for a community-research partnership, and the steps in a community based participatory approach are described: 1) establish guiding features of a collaborative framework: i) form an advisory group, ii) develop ethical guidance, iii) agree upon underlying theoretical concepts for the research study, and; 2) engage in research actions that support co-creation of knowledge throughout study processes. The case study example used to illustrate the collaborative framework was conducted by and with a First Nations, Inuit and Métis women’s community and research partners to culturally adapt a health decision making strategy. A community based participatory research approach fosters engagement among community and research participants and directs community-research collaboration. The collaborative framework structured ongoing negotiations within the community-research partnership to ensure that ethical obligations to research participants and the broader community were met and goals of the study achieved.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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