Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper outlines the development of the Transformative Consciousness (TC) of Oppression and Privilege (COAP) Scale created to address the conceptual and measurement limitations of the critical consciousness (CC) construct. Unlike prior CC measures, this scale was developed for the general population, integrates identities that are oppressed and privileged, incorporates the social-ecological framework, assesses cognitions, and attempts to reduce the impact of social desirability bias. Following DeVellis’ (2003) scale development process and Rubio and colleague’s (2003) process for content validity, this paper presents: a review of CC measurement literature and the lack of standardized conceptualization and measurement tools; an overview of TC theory; the COAP scale development process; and, a content validity study of COAP including quantitative and qualitative methods. An outgrowth of the first author’s conceptualization of Transformative Consciousness, the domain-specific and content validated COAP scale demonstrates a unique scaling method combining vignettes, sentence completions, rank ordering of response options, and scoring of ordering patterns. Limitations of the COAP scale and opportunities for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".