Positionality, intersectionality, power dynamics in community participatory research to define public safety in Black communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is necessary for shifting knowledge and empowering community members to establish ownership over research. It was used in this current project to study safety in predominately Black communities. Findings illustrate how the embodiment of power was a present theme and impacted the partnerships among the academics and community, as well as defining "who" could speak on the issues the project was attempting to address. This paper builds upon previous research in CBPR findings to illustrate how community leaders can shape the research, the importance of defining community, and the need to bring to the forefront issues of intersectionality and positionality. In doing so, it attempts to reshape existing CBPR models to better account for the fluid, interactive relationships among the academics, community researchers, and the community leader and expand upon the role of intersectionality in these relationships.
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 | 0.111 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".