MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950966762 · doi:10.22329/csw.v6i1.5710

Participatory Action Research with South Asian Immigrant Women

2019· article· en· W2950966762 on OpenAlex
D. Rosemary Cassano, Judith M. Dunlop

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchEmpowermentCitizen journalismAction (physics)SociologyInsiderImmigrationWork (physics)Action researchProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)Public relationsPolitical sciencePedagogyEngineeringAnthropologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is presented as similar to social work in regard to processes, outcomes and empowerment. The challenges in utilizing PAR in social work are explored using the example of a PAR project with a group of South Asian immigrant women in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. An examination of the insider-outsider dimensions of PAR is also provided. The similarities between the process in social work and the process in PAR are discussed with reference to the specific skills relevant to both. This paper proposes a set of considerations to facilitate the use of Participatory Action Research in social work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.749
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.073 · 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