MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W33021810 · doi:10.1177/1471301220964621

A Tool for Participatory Negotiation: LINKing-UP Participatory Design and Design Knowledge Reuse

2004· article· en· W33021810 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory designReuseNegotiationComputer scienceKnowledge managementDesign knowledgeCitizen journalismProcess managementParticipatory GISSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the results of a content and critical discourse analysis of Canadian federal policy documentation relating to the development of a national Canadian dementia strategy. These documents span from 2013 and focus upon Canadian federal policy directives and directions up to the release, and including the release, of a national strategy in June 2019. The analyses, supplemented by a subtextual examination of these documents guided by Bacchi's (2012) "What's the Problem Represented to be?" framework, focuses upon the treatment of gender in policy documentation and the specific gender related policy framework, known as GBA+ (gender-based analysis and intersectionality), which is intended to bring about health equity to disadvantaged groups. As women, particularly, working class women and their carers, as well as women with additional intersecting factors, such as being lesbian or bisexual, are less likely to receive the dementia related care and services they need, precipitating a premature move to residential care, GBA+ is an essential policy framework in the attempt to address these inequities. However, findings point to a superficial treatment of gender, GBA and GBA+ in federal policy documents and lack a meaningful invocation of women's gendered and intersectional lived experiences of dementia. Additionally, the Canadian federal government's Dementia Strategy for Canada: Together We Aspire (2019) is grounded in a rendition of citizenship that do not work to unearth the complex relationships between citizenship, old age, gender and intersectional factors. As a result, the Dementia Strategy for Canada: Together We Aspire (2019) presents a version of citizenship that homogenizes older adults and prevents representations of older adults as diverse, complex and continually changing groupings. Therefore, inspired by Bartlett et al. (2018), I advocate for the application of a feminist and intersectional citizenship lens in Canadian federal dementia-related policymaking documentation going forward.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207