Needs and Readiness Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tools for promoting community-university engagement with Aboriginal communities Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is recognised by national funding organisations as the most appropriate, even the most desirable, approach to research involving marginalised communities (Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2008), establishing an expectation that researchers will engage communities in meaningful ways and as equal partners throughout the research process (Minkler & Wallerstein 2003). As a result, there is increased acknowledgement by scholars of the importance of engaging those who can bring their own perspectives and understanding of community life to key issues (McCloskey et al. 2011). Israel et al. (1998) promote the use of CBPR methods in public health research, as they allow researchers to look at the social and environmental factors involved in health outcomes and to apply health knowledge in community settings. Our use of the term CBPR is derived from Israel et al. (1998) and refers to the participation of non-academic researchers (Métis Settlement members) in the process of co-creating knowledge, with both community and university partners contributing their individual strengths to improving community wellbeing. In this article we discuss a CBPR project conducted in partnership with Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement (BLMS), an
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.012 |
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".