DECOLONIZING HEALTH RESEARCH: COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND POSTCOLONIAL FEMINIST THEORY
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
Within Canada, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has become the dominant methodology for scholars who conduct health research with Aboriginal communities. While CBPR has become understood as a methodology that can lead to more equitable relations of power between Aboriginal community members and researchers, it is not a panacea. In this article, we examine CBPR’s decolonizing potential and challenges to meeting this potential. Specifically, we argue that those who use CBPR need to recognize and expose the ways in which power inequities are perpetrated if decolonization is to result from CBPR. Further, we argue that one of the ways to meet CBPR’s decolonizing potential is to utilize a postcolonial feminist approach.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| gpt | MetaresearchScience and technology studies Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.357 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| 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