MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398144355 · doi:10.1186/s13690-024-01303-7

Fuzzy cognitive mapping in participatory research and decision making: a practice review

2024· review· en· W4398144355 on OpenAlexaff
Iván Sarmiento, Anne Cockcroft, Anna Dion, Loubna Belaid, Hilah Silver, Katherine Pizarro, Juan Pimentel, Elyse Tratt, Lashanda Skerritt, Mona Ziba Ghadirian, Marie‐Catherine Gagnon‐Dufresne, Neil Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsHealth services researchPublic healthFuzzy cognitive mapCitizen journalismQuality of Life ResearchHealth administrationCognitionMedicineManagement scienceFuzzy logicComputer scienceKnowledge managementData scienceArtificial intelligenceFuzzy setNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) is a graphic technique to describe causal understanding in a wide range of applications. This practice review summarises the experience of a group of participatory research specialists and trainees who used FCM to include stakeholder views in addressing health challenges. From a meeting of the research group, this practice review reports 25 experiences with FCM in nine countries between 2016 and 2023. RESULTS: The methods, challenges and adjustments focus on participatory research practice. FCM portrayed multiple sources of knowledge: stakeholder knowledge, systematic reviews of literature, and survey data. Methodological advances included techniques to contrast and combine maps from different sources using Bayesian procedures, protocols to enhance the quality of data collection, and tools to facilitate analysis. Summary graphs communicating FCM findings sacrificed detail but facilitated stakeholder discussion of the most important relationships. We used maps not as predictive models but to surface and share perspectives of how change could happen and to inform dialogue. Analysis included simple manual techniques and sophisticated computer-based solutions. A wide range of experience in initiating, drawing, analysing, and communicating the maps illustrates FCM flexibility for different contexts and skill bases. CONCLUSIONS: A strong core procedure can contribute to more robust applications of the technique while adapting FCM for different research settings. Decision-making often involves choices between plausible interventions in a context of uncertainty and multiple possible answers to the same question. FCM offers systematic and traceable ways to document, contrast and sometimes to combine perspectives, incorporating stakeholder experience and causal models to inform decision-making. Different depths of FCM analysis open opportunities for applying the technique in skill-limited settings.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.555
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.003 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Public HealthSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207