BUILDING TOGETHER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the article is to underline the importance of community-based participatory research, which involves institutional researchers and community practitioners, in establishing local and regional research priorities in relation to HIV/AIDS. We describe an 11-month-long reflection process conducted by a research collective in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region of northern Quebec. The significant results of the joint reflection and discussion process included: the development of local capacities for research and collective action, involving academics and practitioners; the valorization of participatory research; and the increased accessibility of research-based knowledge for community actors involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In contrast with more traditional research methods, the participatory approach situates the balance of power within a research collective that jointly determines, throughout the course of the project, the priorities that best reflect local needs for HIV/AIDS research. This initial process of discussion resulted also in the joint validation of a forthcoming grant application to be submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.190 | 0.071 |
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".