Enhancing the Wellbeing of Immigrant Women of Immigrant Women Retirees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report summarizes the developmental evaluation process for Enhancing the Wellbeing of Immigrant Women Retirees, a participatory research project undertaken by Bow Valley College (BVC) and Calgary Immigrant Women’s Association (CIWA). Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Community and College Social Innovation grant, the project explored the experiences of immigrant women in Calgary. Consisting of two distinct phases, during phase one of this project the research team conducted 25 qualitative interviews with retired immigrant women in Calgary as well as interviews with key stakeholders who work with this population. This initial phase also saw the research team use participant observation to gain a deeper understanding of the facilitators and barriers to social and civic participation for retired immigrant women. During phase two, the team worked with a group of up to 10 retired immigrant women to co-create strategies and initiatives to combat isolation and overcome the challenges associated with aging. From May to November 2017, the co-creation group met bi-weekly to discuss and refine the research findings. The group moved from discussion to action by developing and testing two pilot initiatives to explore how to tackle the challenges that face retired immigrant women. A developmental evaluation process accompanied the co-creation element of the research. This process is an evaluation strategy embedded within an emerging initiative offering feedback and insight as the initiative develops. In an effort to offer a deeper understanding of participatory research, co-creation, and developmental evaluation, this report captures the project’s developmental evaluation process key learnings. Consisting of three main sections the report opens with an overview that describes the developmental evaluation methodology and as well as providing background on the co-creation process. Next the report examines the key developmental moments of the co-creation process. Developmental moments are “instances when the initiative shifts or moves forward in some significant way; moments of clarity, strategic insight, serendipity, connections and/or movement” (Dozois et al., 2010, p. 41). These moments also work to articulate the timeline and significant activities from the beginning to the end of the co-creation process. The final section of the report explores the group dynamics at play throughout co-creation including the layers of dynamics between participants, participants and project facilitators, and project partners (BVC and CIWA). The report concludes with a series of recommendations for future work and draws on key learnings to inform future collaborations of this nature. Five recommendations are identified and discussed: 1) be flexible and adjust expectations, 2) pay attention to differences between group participants and manage those carefully, 3) create opportunities for ownership by participants, 4) create a space that is hospitable and welcoming, and 5) find opportunities to learn through the collaborative process. Finally, the appendices include details about the outcomes of the co-creation process and provide relevant additional information. Of note: during phase two of this project, the Centre for Excellence in Immigrant and Intercultural Advancement underwent a transition and subsequent renaming to become the School of Global Access
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 | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".