Experiences on the implementation and maintenance of the Canadian Disability Participation Project: A mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing a multidisciplinary network of researchers, trainees, and research users-such as the Canadian Disability Participation Project (CDPP)-is a promising approach to promote and support research partnerships and improve the application of disability research findings. This study aimed to 1) describe the implementation of the CDPP network over time and 2) explore members' experiences and reflections on the implementation and maintenance of the CDPP network and its partnerships. This mixed-methods study used survey data, collected among CDPP researchers, trainees and research users in the years 2018, 2019 and 2021, and interview data, collected at the end of the study period (2021/2022). Survey items, focused on network functioning and satisfaction (implementation), were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews focused on members' experiences and reflections of the implementation and maintenance of the network and its partnerships, and were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Members were positive about how the network functioned and satisfied with how the CDPP implemented its plans. Over 70% of the survey participants indicated that it was easy to work with researchers/research users in the CDPP network (2018: 71%; 2019: 85%; 2021: 70%). Interview participants discussed the strong leadership of the network, the lack of feeling meaningfully connected to the network as a whole, and key principles that guide the success of individual research partnerships (implementation). Participants reported that (human) resources and continued leadership are needed to sustain the network and its partnerships long-term (maintenance). This study provides unique longitudinal insights into the implementation of a multidisciplinary network of research partnerships. The findings highlighted that building and sustaining a large network of partnerships is challenging and requires strong and continued leadership. To conclude, we describe lessons learned for research partnership capacity building and the translation of disability research to practice and policy.
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 | 0.045 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".