MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2977376587 · doi:10.29011/2688-7460.100004

Participatory Research and Family Medicine

2017· article· en· W2977376587 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine and Primary Care Open Access · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen journalismSociologyMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participatory research is the science of partnerships underlying research, concerned with research governance, ownership of research products and relationships behind research objectives and methods.By integrating knowledge translation into the research, participatory research proposes an alternative to the view of knowledge translation as a multi-stage process where a researcher might pass on research products to a different entity that shares the information for action, and from there to a third entity that acts on it.The common strand behind the quite different schools of participatory research is that research should be in respectful partnership with people; it is not about researchers working on, for or about people.Modern participatory research embraces different objectives and philosophies through several areas of application.The first application addresses research objectives, typically calling for mixed methods (combining qualitative and quantitative techniques), with participation at different points in the research cycle.Second, modern participatory research is highly relevant in adaptive management, including management of primary health care.Third, participatory research is a lens for patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes in the clinical context.A fourth application of participatory research is as an intervention: participatory research moves people.It mobilizes resources for health objectives, and can thus be pivotal to program sustainability and for forging health-promoting inter-sectoral linkages like environment, education and employment.If primary health care is a family medicine responsibility, participatory research offers family medicine a valuable science and toolbox complementing the accepted clinical toolboxes.Through shared conceptualization of problems and decision making about solutions, participatory research increases participants' capacity to identify and address their own issues.It increases decision-maker and service provider ability to mobilize resources and to improve policies.Among clinicians it enhances professional practices.In the bigger social picture, all this promotes social justice, self-determination and knowledge utilization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.078
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0110.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.950
GPT teacher head0.792
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Medicine and Primary Care Open Access→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→