MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7146028294

ヘルスプロモーションにおける参加型研究

2000· article· ja· W7146028294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Frankish, Lawrence W. Green, 加奈子 岡田

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchParticipatory GISCitizen journalismPromotion (chess)Process (computing)Action (physics)Feeling
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this paper are: 1) to provide an overview of a participatory research approach as it maybe applied in health promotion in Japan. 2) to adapt guidelines for participatory research previously developed in Canada to the Japanese context. For this paper, we define participatory research as systematic inquiry, with the collaboration of those affected by the issue being studied, for purposes of education and taking action or effecting social change. Most definitions of participatory research emphasize the integration of three elements: research (usually described as systematic investigation), education and action. During a participatory research project, an educational and learning process takes place. The research process is also capacity building in that it enables and supports the development of new skills and expertise among both community participants and external researchers. Participatory research tries to bring together the search for solutions to community health problems and taking action by using a community development approach, within the research process. Participatory research is a process rather than a specific methodology. Quantitative and / or qualitative can equally be applied in participatory research. Descriptions of early projects in the development of participatory research stress an equal relationship between community members and technically trained researchers. Rather than presupposing absolute equality between the researcher and the community participants, more recent descriptions of participatory research emphasize the unique strengths and shared responsibilities of each group. Arai (1996) explains "A Key characteristic of participatory research is that the researcher understand the feelings and desires of community members, investigate and practice to solve their health issue." And participatory research uses their feelings and desires and also community members will have the assessment their abilities. The term community is defined in this context as any group of individual

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207