Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Participatory” and “Participatory Action” are increasingly entering the vocabulary of social work researchers and consultants. Research studies and evaluations claiming to be participatory action research may fail to transfer power to research subjects, or engage the participation of the community in research activities. Given this, how can social workers wanting to do participatory research know whether or not the research they are doing involves people in a way that facilitates the transformation of oppressive structures and social relations? Examination of the historical development of the concepts of participation and participatory research gives some guidance, with discussions of aims, principles and case studies. However, there are no clear guides to aid researchers or students in choosing an approach to client or community involvement which they can feel comfortable calling participatory. This paper fills this gap by providing a quadrant continuum representing two dimensions of participat...
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 | 0.121 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".