“Very Similar to Having a Pimp”: Community Advisory Board Members’ Experiences in Health-Related Community-Based Participatory Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the abundance of research on the experiences of researchers with community-based participatory research (CBPR), there has been comparatively little published on CAB members’ experiences. The goal of this research was to analyze the lived experiences of a small sample of CAB members in recent health-focused CBPR in Canada, with a particular focus on areas for improvement. We found that CAB members in CBPR experienced low perceived value from researchers due to communication patterns, education differences, and inadequate compensation. These issues may be mitigated through increased CAB member engagement throughout the research process, adequate compensation, and improved emotional support. This study demonstrates that if CBPR methodologies are to live up to their promise, it is crucial that CAB members are enabled to work in true partnership with researchers, receive adequate compensation that is meaningful to them, and are supported throughout the process.
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 | 0.042 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".