Transformative Potential of Peer-Research: Connecting Theory with Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we report on follow-up research to the “Lone Mothers: Building Social Inclusion” project, a cross-Canada study which utilized a Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology to investigate the experiences of single mothers on social assistance in a changing socio-political context. We analyzed the study’s peer-interviewing approach in detail. Findings suggest that PAR theory was applied in the Lone Mothers project in ways that cultivated and sustained authentic relationships, contributed to individual and social change, and minimized hierarchy. The effects of this commitment to the epistemology and values of PAR led to a non-linear and organic research process yielding high quality data. We contribute to PAR literature and the utilization of peer-interviewers through scrutinizing this methodology’s potential and challenges. We contend that PAR’s greatest transformative potential might come from building authentic and transformative relationships within research processes that facilitate robust data collection and divergent and innovative analytic perspectives.
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 | 0.176 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.137 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".