MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236007893 · doi:10.24124/2007/bpgub492

What factors influence the practice of community-based participatory health research in the Canadian Arctic?

2007· dissertation· en· W4236007893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne E. Butler Walker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity-based participatory researchParticipatory action researchArcticCitizen journalismThe arcticCommunity healthSociologyEnvironmental planningPolitical sciencePublic relationsGeographyMedicineNursingPublic healthEcologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature about community-based participatory research for health offers an approach to investigating health issues that involves community members, practitioners and researchers as equal partners and co-investigators, on issues of importance to the community. There are currently few examples of how to develop and implement community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects in the Canadian Arctic. The study investigates the practice of CBPR in a project that took place in the Kitikmeot Region of Canada's central Arctic. --P.ii.

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)0.128
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1280.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0350.019
Scholarly communication0.0210.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.514
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.107 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207