MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969621709 · doi:10.33524/cjar.v17i3.289

FEELING LIKE RESEARCH PARTNERS AS A YOUTH-ADULT TEAM

2016· article· en· W2969621709 on OpenAlex
Morgan Gardner, Linda P. Brown, Elizabeth Young, Allie Young, Ann McCann, Carol Myles

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Action Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipParticipatory action researchFeelingCreativityFlexibility (engineering)Citizen journalismAction researchPublic relationsPower (physics)PsychologyPassionSociologySocial psychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participatory action research (PAR) lacks concerted attention to what makes youth-adult teams feel like genuine partners. This paper explores our youth-adult PAR team’s experience of what made us feel like partners during our five-year study of youth voice in educational change. Our findings reveal that we felt like research partners when our partnership was rooted in 1) real relationship; 2) shared power, responsibility and passion; 3) a culture of flexibility, creativity and unfolding; and 4) transformation. By conceptualizing partnership in a manner that incorporates both youth and adult felt experiences and shared understandings, notions of youth-adult partnership become more inclusive. These findings (re)orient current emphases placed on the partnering benefits to youth, research and social change.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.899
GPT teacher head0.737
Teacher spread0.162 · 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