MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386576402 · doi:10.1177/16094069231202202

Training Indigenous Community Researchers for Community-Based Participatory Ethnographic Dementia Research: A Second-Generation Model

2023· article· en· W4386576402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa Blind, Kristen Jacklin, Karen Pitawanakwat, Dana Ketcher, Nickolas H. Lambrou, Wayne Warry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthOneida Nation Foundation
KeywordsParticipatory action researchCommunity-based participatory researchIndigenousExperiential learningMedical educationFocus groupCommunity engagementSociologyMedicinePedagogyPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a complex endeavor, particularly when training non-academic community members. Though examples of CBPR training programs and protocols have been published, they often address a limited set of concepts and are tailored for university or medical school students. Here, we describe the process of developing an online CBPR training program for American Indian (United States) and Indigenous (Canada) community members to conduct multi-sited ethnographic dementia research. This program is unique in its breadth and depth, as our program covers CBPR theory, methods, practical research, and administrative skills. Significantly, this program centers Indigenous methodology, pedagogy, and processes such as two-eyed seeing, storywork, and decolonization approaches. Key to this training program is a "second-generation" approach which incorporates experiential knowledge from prior community-based researchers and academic partners and is designed to develop CBPR capacity among community-based researchers and partnering communities. In this paper, we detail the experience of the first cohort of learners and subsequent improvement of the training materials. Unique challenges related to the specific research focus (dementia care pathway), population/setting (American Indian and Indigenous communities), and technology (rural digital infrastructure) are also discussed.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.986
GPT teacher head0.799
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207