COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH FILMMAKING WITH FORMERLY HOMELESS OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This methodological paper discusses the process of co-creating a documentary film with seven formerly homeless older adults, highlighting some of the tensions carrying out community-based participatory research (CBPR). This paper is part of a larger study that explored ‘finding home’ through a series of individual and group audio and video-recorded interviews (including walk and drive alongs) with seven adults (aged 50+) with diverse homeless histories. In addition to the main findings, participants shared their experience of filmmaking and CBPR. Findings revealed four main tensions: 1) openness of sharing stories versus privacy and anonymity; 2) balancing participation/engagement and over-burdening; 3) negotiating interpersonal conflict and community building; and 4) ethical issues surrounding copyright and ownership of the film. Ultimately, we advocate for more CBPR film projects, as they not only provide a rich contextualized window into people’s everyday lives but serve to advance the voices of marginalized populations beyond traditional academic circles.
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 | 0.038 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".