MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162036374 · doi:10.82308/52009

An ethnographic evaluation of a community-based participatory research project understanding community mobilization & participation in school active transportation initiatives in the Kanien’kehá:ka community of Kahnawake, Qc

2015· dissertation· en· W7162036374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Soultana Macridis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory action researchTimelineCommunity-based participatory researchGeneral partnershipCommunity organizationCitizen journalismAction planParticipatory evaluationPromotion (chess)Data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP), is a well established Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) health promotion organization in the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) community of Kahnawake, Quebec, where community stakeholders and academic researchers collaboratively developed the School Wellness Policy for the community elementary schools. The Wellness policy contains both a nutrition and a physical activity (PA) policy. Specific to the PA policy, this study addresses a community identified need to develop school active transportation (AT; walk, bike, etc.) programming. AT has become a recent strategy to incorporate into school policies to increase opportunities for children to be physically active.The Active & Safe Routes to School’s (ASRTS) School Travel Planning (STP) processes, a recommended approach within Canada, includes five steps: Setup; Data Collection & Problem Identification; Action Planning; Implementation; and Evaluation. This current study mobilized and engaged key community stakeholders to form the STP-Committee and undertake STP-Processes 1-3 for two community elementary schools. Through ethnography, data were drawn upon participant observation, field notes, meeting minutes, and a coordinated action partnership survey and interviews. Serving STP-Action Plans, ASRTS activities were adapted and included: family survey, in-class travel survey, pedestrian-traffic observations, pedestrian environment data scan (PEDS) walkability checklist, a school profile survey, and classroom mapping activities. Guided by principles of CBPR, the researcher and STP-community committee members worked in a close and equitable partnership.The STP-Committee met monthly from January 2013 to August 2014. The composition of the committee was two teachers/parents, two school administrators, transportation management, one community protection representative, and KSDPP staff. Guided by a co-developed timeline and terms of reference, local knowledge and expertise were incorporated into all aspects of research. Although there were some challenges, such as time and meeting opportunities, commitment and ongoing support from recognized community organizations facilitated the process. ASRTS data were jointly collected, analyzed, and interpreted, which contributed to the development of context-specific and evidence informed STP-Action Plans for each school to be implemented in the 2014-15 school year. Data obtained through ethnography allowed for uncovering the STP-Process, allowing a deeper understanding of key processes and outcomes.Combining CBPR and ethnography with STP was suitable for merging community and researcher expertise for STP in Kahnawake. This project contributes to evidence-informed practice for KSDPP’s objectives to promote active living through school- and community-wide interventions and met the School PA Policy objective of increasing PA opportunities through AT. Illuminating the STP-Process and findings could benefit other Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities wishing to undertake STP.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.676
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→