Mutual learning for knowledge co-creation about disability inclusive development programmes and practice
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
To deal with world-wide problems in development, actors need to co-create new knowledge. This can be done through mutual reflection on underlying values and assumptions and by combining the knowledge of different actors from society and academia. This paper shows how knowledge co-creation can be facilitated with attention to multiple actor collaboration, creating outputs which are relevant for science and society and which contribute to sustainable development. We describe how a group of different actors can become mutually engaged to co-create knowledge in a shared domain of interest. Through mutual learning and experimentation in a community of practice, the actors develop a shared repertoire of socially robust knowledge. The balance between theory and practice during knowledge co-creation process helped to gain in-depth understanding of the process. This shows the importance of mutual learning and co-creation of knowledge when a new issue is introduced in development practices. To illustrate this, the experiences of over 30 organisations, united in a community of practice on disability inclusive development, are considered.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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