Developing Compassionate Community: Insights from the International Standards for Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging populations have increased demand for hospice palliative care and support for dying persons. More broadly, community support is also becoming an increasingly important aspect of public health intervention. Compassionate communities advocate active bottom-up community participation to strengthen communities' assets around death and dying. However, these rapidly growing initiatives face a challenge in putting values such as cultural diversity, relationship, and love into practice and in making a social impact through "meaningful participation" at the community level. Reflecting on our experiences in a recent study of dying at home in Canada, we consider potential challenges for compassionate communities more broadly. We argue that risks related to gendered inequity, neo-liberal discourses around caring work, and an over-emphasis of community resilience need to be deliberated in compassionate community policy and service development. To mitigate these risks, we argue that the eight components of the International Standards for Community Development Practice or ISCDP (from the International Association for Community Development or IACD) provide important direction about putting values into practice, for instance by advocating for service and policy improvement while engaging in practice and research on compassionate communities. We discuss how the international standards can inform compassionate community development in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".