Understanding and Building Community Capacity Through Conversation: A Conversation Forward Community Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT) to Catalyze Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community capacity refers to the potential people and infrastructure have to develop initiatives that address community priorities. Understanding and building community capacity should be a parallel track with any health promotion initiative to support sustainability. Tools that assess community capacity are frequently implemented as a fast-and-easy measurement to assess the impact of community initiatives. These assessment tools are often created from validated measurement domains and questions to capture the essence of capacity at the community level. However, the piloting of such tools during the Alberta Healthy Communities Approach (AHCA) initiative from 2016-2019 found that tools that emphasize measurement often fail to facilitate and capture essential conversations. As a result, in 2019-2023, we developed and piloted a new conversation-forward Community Capacity Assessment Tool (CCAT) to assist with facilitating often complex community conversations about community capacity and to catalyze local action. The CCAT was created and implemented with an integrated knowledge translation approach that incorporated feedback from community members, implementation practitioners, researchers, and existing academic literature. The 17 communities that implemented the CCAT during the AHCA from 2019-2023 found the focus on conversation supported stronger knowledge translation of capacity concepts and domains and catalyzed action to build community capacity as a parallel element of action planning and implementation. Keywords: healthy communities approach, multisectoral collaboration, community capacity, rural communities ______________________________________________________________________ Comprendre et renforcer les capacités communautaires par la conversation : un outil d'évaluation des capacités communautaires (CCAT) pour catalyser l'action RésuméLa capacité communautaire fait référence au potentiel dont disposent les personnes et les infrastructures pour développer des initiatives qui répondent aux priorités communautaires. La compréhension et le renforcement des capacités communautaires devraient être une démarche parallèle à toute initiative de promotion de la santé visant à soutenir la durabilité. Les outils qui évaluent la capacité communautaire sont fréquemment mis en oeuvre comme mesure rapide et facile pour évaluer l’impact des initiatives communautaires. Ces outils d'évaluation sont souvent créés à partir de domaines de mesure et de questions validés pour capturer l'essence de la capacité au niveau communautaire. Cependant, le projet pilote de tels outils au cours de l’initiative Alberta Healthy Communities Approach (AHCA) de 2016 à 2019 a révélé que les outils qui mettent l’accent sur la mesure ne parviennent souvent pas à faciliter et à capturer les conversations essentielles. En conséquence, en 2019-2023, nous avons développé et piloté un nouvel outil d’évaluation de la capacité communautaire (CCAT) axé sur la conversation pour aider à faciliter les conversations communautaires souvent complexes sur la capacité communautaire et à catalyser l’action locale. Le CCAT a été créé et mis en oeuvre selon une approche intégrée d’application des connaissances qui intègre les commentaires des membres de la communauté, des praticiens de la mise en oeuvre, des chercheurs et de la littérature universitaire existante. Les 17 communautés qui ont mis en oeuvre le CCAT au cours de l’AHCA de 2019 à 2023 ont constaté que l’accent mis sur la conversation favorisait une meilleure application des connaissances sur les concepts et les domaines de capacité et catalysait l’action pour renforcer la capacité communautaire en tant qu’élément parallèle de la planification et de la mise en oeuvre des actions. Mots-clés : approche des communautés en santé, collaboration multisectorielle, capacité communautaire, communautés rurales
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| 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".