Community and Academic Research Partnerships: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation will report and reflect on a two year qualitative study that involved a partnership between the Child Development Institute (CDI), an accredited children’s mental health centre and Humber College, both located in Toronto, Ontario. The study considered the experiences of women who have recently participated in the Mothers in Mind (MIM) program to begin to understand what impact their participation in MIM has had on their parenting after trauma, their relationship with their child, their self-esteem and social isolation. While pre/post tests and other quantitative measures were in place to study the MIM program, facilitators noticed that participants had many detailed and specific accounts on how MIM made a difference in their lives that were not well captured in the quantitative data. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with facilitators and participants by both the Principal Investigator and four postgraduate students. In this manner the study also served as a teaching opportunity. This presentation will include the methodology of this study as well as a brief review of findings, with special consideration given to the opportunities and challenges found in community/academic research partnerships and incorporating students in the process.
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 | 0.162 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".