Everyday ethics of participation: a case study of a CBPR in Nunavik
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
INTRODUCTION: Multiple reports highlight the need for community-based family-oriented prevention services for Aboriginal peoples in order to address important health and social inequalities. Participatory, empowerment-based approaches are generally favoured for these means. Faced with important social issues, in a context of colonisation and complex power dynamics, we question how community members experience participation, as well as the everyday dynamics that take place when attempting to create community-level change. CONTEXT: The initial steps of this community-based participatory research (CBPR) took place over a two-year period in a community of Nunavik, a large northern region of the province of Quebec. The objective of the CBPR was to develop a community-driven project aimed at supporting families to be able to keep children within their homes or communities, rather than having to be placed under child welfare services. METHOD: We participated in, and documented, various group meetings, community workshops, informal reflexive discussions, and formal interviews with community partners to explore their everyday experiences of participation in community-based change. RESULTS: We describe some of the initial actions taken in this project. We describe how certain social and power dynamics infiltrated into the process of participation leading to various tensions, personal and interpersonal experiences and needs. DISCUSSION: We discuss how these experiences led to everyday ethical dilemmas regarding participation. We conclude that although participatory approaches towards community change may be effective, they are also ethically challenging and at times disempowering for those who participate. We describe some of the approaches used to work with these ethical challenges.
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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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