MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417358421 · doi:10.1177/14767503251405756

Strengthening Reflexivity Through Trauma- and Violence-Informed Practice in Action Research

2025· article· en· W4417358421 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAction Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityHarmAction researchAction (physics)Focus (optics)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflexivity is an integral part of action research and is recognized as an important and necessary indicator of study rigour. A key goal of reflexivity is to ensure that research decisions do not replicate existing (or add new) harm to those whom the research describes or involves, however less attention has been paid to potential harms that researchers themselves may face. This paper brings attention to the vulnerabilities of researchers with lived experiences of trauma and structural violence and explicitly integrates Trauma- and Violence-Informed (TVI) principles into the reflexive process. A case example and “how to” guide are provided to assist researchers in creating safe environments not only for their study participants, but also for the researchers and community co-researchers involved, with particular focus on those conducting sensitive studies in highly (re)traumatizing topic areas.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.748
GPT teacher head0.752
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