MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132244322 · doi:10.1080/15575330.2021.1885049

Community development participation scale: A development and validation study

2021· article· en· W3132244322 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunity Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaScale (ratio)Community developmentPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Sample (material)Test (biology)Content validityApplied psychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a Community Development Participation Scale (CDPS) to be yieldingly administered and useful to community development researchers in measuring the level of participation of people in community development activities. This instrument was administered as a development and validation study to a sample of women from rural communities in Ghana (N= 210). After the reliability and validity analysis, the attitude/interest subscale was left with eight (8) items and a Cronbach alpha level of .73. The active participation subscale was left with nine (9) items and a Cronbach alpha level of .79. Principal component analysis (PCA) with a direct oblimin rotation indicated a two-dimensional scale with a KMO value of .82 and a Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (136) = 846.68, p < .01. These results show that the CDPS is strong enough to recommend its use in community development settings.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.236 · 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