Codesign and Implementation of a Toolkit Supporting Community Organizations’ Intergenerational Practice: A Participatory Action Research Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergenerational initiatives have the potential to bring generations together and can have a wide range of benefits for the health of older adults as well as for the development of young people. This paper presents a five-phase participatory action research protocol for the co-design and pilot implementation of a toolkit supporting intergenerational practice across community organizations in the province of Quebec (Canada), as well as the initial impacts of the project. This participatory action research was initiated in response to a need expressed by community organizations for support in selecting, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based intergenerational initiatives. To date, the funding secured for this project has allowed our research team to establish several partnerships with field actors involved in intergenerational practice and conduct the first three phases of the project in collaboration with these partners. While demanding in terms of time and resources, this collaborative work is fruitful and will ensure the creation of a toolkit that meets the needs of knowledge users. This article a) describes the origins of the project; b) outlines a step-by-step process for developing and implementing a participatory action research project with community organizations; and c) discusses the initial impacts of the participatory action research 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".