MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386414615 · doi:10.15402/esj.v9i1.70805

Co-authorship with Community Partners as Research Co-creation

2023· article· en· W4386414615 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngaged Scholar Journal Community-Engaged Research Teaching and Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationAcademic communityReflection (computer programming)Engineering ethicsField (mathematics)SociologyExistentialismCo-creationProcess (computing)Public relationsKnowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringSocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report from the field provides reflection on the author’s experience of co-authoring a peer-reviewed manuscript with community partners for publication in an academic journal. The report reflects on the existential, logistical, and process-related challenges of applying community-based research and delivering its promise of knowledge co-creation while grappling with inequities imbedded in the realities of academic and non-academic life. Reflecting on the lessons learned, this paper probes into further considerations for the operationalization of ethical principles for equitable collaboration in community-based research.

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)0.966
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.819
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.9660.819
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.8180.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.882
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.580
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.063 · 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