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 OpenAlexaff
Charles Gyan

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunity DevelopmentSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207