MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323314054 · doi:10.1177/14767503231160960

How long-term emancipatory programming facilitates participatory evaluation: Building a methodology of participation through research with youth in Honduras

2023· article· en· W4323314054 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAction Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
KeywordsParticipatory action researchEmpowermentAction researchGeneral partnershipTransformative learningParticipatory evaluationInsiderSociologyCitizen journalismPublic relationsFraming (construction)Political sciencePedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empowerment and participation are promoted as critical factors in meaningful development processes; however, action-oriented researchers face challenges in fostering genuine empowerment and meaningful participation within traditional funding cycles and research timelines. This case study illustrates a participatory methodology employed by researchers in partnership with one Honduran non-governmental organization (NGO) to conduct 'practical' participatory evaluation with rural Honduran youth. Through collaborative autoethnography, two components of this methodology are identified and described. The first component - 'foundational elements'- includes the NGO's culture of transformative participation and the organization's attention to synergies in the insider/outsider identities of research partners. The second component includes the ability of the research team to leverage this foundation for the participatory evaluation with rural youth. Importantly, this ability was grounded in and shaped by long-term, trust-based relationships between research partners. These relationships were the catalyst for success in this participatory initiative, connecting the 'foundational elements' identified to the collaborative outcomes experienced. Overall, this case study contributes to current and ongoing scholarly discussions on how to facilitate meaningful participation and capability expansion in research and evaluation contexts.

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.958
GPT teacher head0.732
Teacher spread0.226 · 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