MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4327520774 · doi:10.2196/44229

Building Culturally Centered System Dynamics Logic Models for the Brown Buttabean Motivation Organization: Protocol for a Systems Science Approach

2023· article· en· W4327520774 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fa’asisila Savila, Truely Harding, Boyd Swinburn, Warwick Bagg, Dave Letele, Fuatino Laban, Felicity Goodyear‐Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Council of New Zealand
KeywordsComputer scienceProtocol (science)Translational scienceSystem dynamicsCognitive scienceDynamics (music)Data scienceKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionManagement sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceSociologyEngineeringMedicineSocial sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Brown Buttabean Motivation (BBM) is an organization providing support for Pacific people and Indigenous Māori to manage their weight, mainly through community-based exercise sessions and social support. It was started by DL, a man of Samoan and Māori descent, following his personal weight loss journey from a peak weight of 210 kg to less than half that amount. DL is a charismatic leader with a high media profile who is successful in soliciting donations from corporations in money and kindness. Over time, BBM's activities have evolved to include healthy eating, food parcel provision, and other components of healthy living. A co-design team of university researchers and BBM staff are evaluating various components of the program and organization. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to build culturally centered system dynamics logic models to serve as the agreed theories of change for BBM and provide a basis for its ongoing effectiveness, sustainability, and continuous quality improvements. METHODS: A systems science approach will clarify the purpose of BBM and identify the systemic processes needed to effectively and sustainably achieve the study's purpose. Cognitive mapping interviews with key stakeholders will produce maps of their conceptions of BBM's goals and related cause-and-effect processes. The themes arising from the analysis of these maps will provide the initial indicators of change to inform the questions for 2 series of group model building workshops. In these workshops, 2 groups (BBM staff and BBM members) will build qualitative systems models (casual loop diagrams), identifying feedback loops in the structures and processes of the BBM system that will enhance the program's effectiveness, sustainability, and quality improvement. The Pacific and Māori team members will ensure that workshop content, processes, and outputs are grounded in cultural approaches appropriate for the BBM community, with several Pacific and Māori frameworks informing the methods. These include the Samoan fa'afaletui research framework, which requires different perspectives to be woven together to create new knowledge, and kaupapa Māori-aligned research approaches, which create a culturally safe space to conduct research by, with, and for Māori. The Pacific fonofale and Māori te whare tapa whā holistic frameworks for interpreting people's dimensions of health and well-being will also inform this study. RESULTS: Systems logic models will inform BBM's future developments as a sustainable organization and support its growth and development beyond its high dependence on DL's charismatic leadership. CONCLUSIONS: This study will adopt a novel and innovative approach to co-designing culturally centered system dynamics logic models for BBM by using systems science methods embedded within Pacific and Māori worldviews and weaving together a number of frameworks and methodologies. These will form the theories of change to enhance BBM's effectiveness, sustainability, and continuous improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN 12621-00093-1875; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382320. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/44229.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1060.010

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 head0.866
GPT teacher head0.749
Teacher spread0.117 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→