Repoliticising Participatory/Action Research: From Action Research to Activism: some considerations on the 7th Action Research Network of Americas Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seventh conference of the Action Research Network of the Americas (ARNA) took place in Montreal, Canada, from the 26th to 28th of June, in 2019. Having as title “Repoliticising Participatory/Action Research: From Action Research to Activism”, the event gathered people from different areas of practice coming mostly from the North American countries: Canada, United States and Mexico. The discussion presented here is based on notes made by the authors in the course of the conference, in which 40 words/keywords were identified, serving as a base to debate the validity of the principles of participatory research and action research in its repoliticisation and activism. Thus, we presented a systematisation of some key themes of the conference, among them, the commitment with the rupture: in relation to the traditional practices of research, the role and the social responsibility of the universities and the transforming character of participation, with emphasis in the effort for its repoliticisation and activism.
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 | 0.142 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.047 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| 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".