The shifting dynamics of social roles and project ownership over the lifecycle of a community-based participatory research project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: . Community based participatory research (CBPR) is often initiated by academic researchers, yet relies on meaningful community engagement and ownership to have lasting impact. Little is understood about how ownership shifts from academic to community partners. Objectives: . We examined a CBPR project over its life course and asked: what does the evolution of ownership look like from project initiation by an academic (non-community) champion (T1); to maturation-when the intervention is ready to be deployed (T2); to independence-the time when the original champion steps aside (T3); and finally, to its maintenance-when the community has had an opportunity to function independently of the original academic champion (T4)? Methods: . Using sociometric (whole network) social network analysis, knowledge leadership was measured using 'in-degree centrality'. Stakeholder network structure was measured using 'centralisation' and 'core-periphery analysis'. Friedman rank sum test was used to measure change in actor roles over time from T1 to T4. Results: . Project stakeholder roles were observed to shift significantly (P < 0.005) from initiation (T1) to project maintenance (T4). Community stakeholders emerged into positions of knowledge leadership, while the roles of academic partners diminished in importance. The overall stakeholder network demonstrated a structural shift towards a core of densely interacting community stakeholders. Conclusion: . This was the first study to use Social network analysis to document a shift in ownership from academic to community partners, indicating community self-determination over the research process. Further analysis of qualitative data will determine which participatory actions or strategies were responsible for this observed change.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
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 | 0.072 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".