Relationship, Accountability, Justice: A Conversation about Community-Engaged Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, a coalition of six Saskatoon community organizations (the Elizabeth Fry Society of Saskatchewan, AIDS Saskatoon, STR8 UP 10,000 Little Steps to Healing, Inc., the Mennonite Central Committee, the Micah Mission, and Community Legal Assistance Services for Saskatoon Inner City [CLASSIC])1 and a university researcher (Sarah Buhler from the University of Saskatchewan College of Law) came together to address the issue of telephone access in Saskatchewan’s provincial correctional centres. Together we established an informal research coalition that we called “Project Access.” The issue of telephone access in provincial prisons had been identified by the six community organizations through their ongoing work with prisoners and former prisoners. Specific concerns included the exorbitant costs of the prison telephone system and unfair and uneven application of policies regarding telephone access. As we met to discuss the issue, it became clear to us that in order to advocate effectively for changes to the system, we needed to research the issue and to learn more about the ways the current telephone access policies were being implemented in provincial prisons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.128 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.090 | 0.176 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.051 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.068 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".