MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616343343 · doi:10.1163/22144471-00401003

Common Actions: Participatory Action Research as a Practice for Promoting Positive Social Action among and between New Canadian Church Planters and Denominational Leaders

2017· article· en· W2616343343 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark D. Chapman, James Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcclesial Practices · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismPublic relationsAction researchAction (physics)ConversationSociologyPolitical scienceResource (disambiguation)PedagogyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Greater Toronto Area remains the major immigrant destination centre in Canada. New Canadians are welcomed but not necessarily well integrated into the lives of churches. Our experience and research has shown that this lack of integration can extend to new Canadians who start churches yet are not integrated with denominations or church planting organizations. The New Canadian Church Planter project is an ongoing participatory action research project that brings together new Canadian church planters and denominational leaders as equals. It engages these groups in conversation to identify issues of concern, facilitate shared learning, and promote positive social action. This paper uses data from that project to explore the effectiveness of participatory action research in facilitating those objectives. The project was effective at breaking down isolation, encouraging limited collaboration, developing localized resource sharing, and in disseminating learning but not at developing positive social action external to the meetings themselves.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.249
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2490.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0260.058
Scholarly communication0.0180.008
Open science0.0070.023
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.578
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.015 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcclesial PracticesSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207