MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987401780 · doi:10.33524/cjar.v20i1.444

Ethical Relationship Building in Action Research: Getting out of Western Norms to Foster Equitable Collaboration

2019· article· en· W2987401780 on OpenAlex

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 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityAction researchNormativeAction (physics)SociologyOrder (exchange)Work (physics)PedagogyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I discuss a pervasive ethical issue when undertaking action research (AR) projects with communities that have been historically marginalized: how outsiders’ learned, normative Western thinking makes building equitable relationships difficult. I then offer strategies for researchers coming from privileged, outsider positionalities to develop their reflective capacities in order to decolonize their thinking. The strategies are based on ten years of reflexive AR work with Quechua community members in rural Peru. The strategies offer guidance on how individuals might begin to transform their internal frameworks when thinking about “the other,” in order to be able to build equitable relationships during action research projects.

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)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.900
GPT teacher head0.731
Teacher spread0.169 · 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