Breaking Bread, Building Hope: An Eight-Year Partnership Addressing the Toxic Drug Crisis in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research that purports to engage communities has become more mainstream, presenting an imperative to thoughtfully engage ethical principles that grapple with on-the-ground complexities of the work. Here we reflect on learnings from an eight-year, community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership in British Columbia, Canada that addressed the ongoing public health emergency of toxic drug-related deaths in a semi-urban and rural setting. This challenging research context provides a methodological petri dish from which to examine common ethical challenges inherent in CBPR work. Here we discuss how praxis aligned with the concepts of relationality, embeddedness and embodiment contain both tension and promise in complex research contexts. We depict how relational authenticity was facilitated by flexibility and informal interactions and was further enhanced by deeply-engaged, physical presence that enkindled hope even when hope was hampered by limited agency. We also present commensality as a promising methodological tool.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".