The local dialogue workshop : a method for knowledge sharing in health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : In Haiti, holders of local and indigenous knowledge living in rural areas are excluded from speaking \nout about health promotion. We invited them to break the culture of silence by asking them to participate in a \ndialogue workshop, held over several days, related to the role of their knowledge in promoting health in their \ncommunities. Unlike some of us may believe, these people are not “cultural idiots”, but are, for the most part, \nilliterate scholars who have developed knowledge through multiple dimensions in order to manage their own \nhealth and that of others (including strangers as well as members of their biological family and their community). \nThrough their participation in the dialogue workshop, they became more aware that they are actually living \nhuman treasures and traditional health promoters, who each play an important role in both human (community \nresilience) and environmental sustainability. Our trusting relationship and our close cultural proximity to the \nparticipants contributed to the success of the dialogue workshop, a success that shattered the myth of the \nmandatory link between the rural dwellers’ situation and absolute ignorance. The objective of this article is to \npresent our methodological approach.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".