Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2019: where the rubber meets the road: the intersection of research, policy, and practice - part 1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Committee membership and abstract review proceduresThe program committee comprised 19 participants. Committee members were selected to ensure representation from multiple viewpoints. Members were from four different countries, various career levels, and represented researchers, intermediaries, practitioners, and policy makers.The abstract review committee comprised 39 participants and, like the program committee, was selected to ensure diverse representation and ensure that submitted abstracts would be reviewed by those with similar roles within implementation science. Each abstract was independently reviewed and scored by two committee members. Scores were averaged across reviewers unless the scores were substantially discrepant, in which case a third reviewer provided additional perspective to determine the abstract score. The abstract review criteria consisted of six components, including alignment with the conference theme, the inclusion of partnerships, background, methods or conceptual fit (if not a research study), findings or results, and implementation focus. Ultimately, the inclusion of partnerships proved difficult to score, so this component was not incorporated in final scores. Raters were given the opportunity to provide additional comments or indicate if the abstract score was not reflective of the overall merit of the proposal. A specified score cutoff was used based upon the number of available breakout rooms. Abstracts with scores at or above this number were provisionally accepted. A separate cutoff was used to determine poster acceptances. Paper presentations were then examined to ensure representation from people of color, women, international teams, and to confirm a balance of research, practice, and policy. Modest modifications to the program were then made. The SIRC 2019 conference received 354 individual submissions, more than doubling the number of submissions received in 2017 for the previous conference and five times more than the inaugural conference in 2011. Seventy-three presentations were accepted as plenaries or breakout symposia. An additional 129 posters were accepted.Spearheaded by the awards committee, SIRC developed new awards in addition to two standing conference awards (Student, New Investigator). Three new conference awards were developed to acknowledge presentations that highlighted the conference theme of science-practice integration, as well as the work of implementation practice. The SIRC Student Award was presented to Heather L. Bullock, for the presentation she led with colleagues John N. Lavis, Michael G. Wilson, Gillian Mulvale, and Ashleigh Miatello. The SIRC New Investigator Award was presented to Emily Becker-Haimes, for the presentation she led with colleagues Jessica Fishman, Torrey Creed, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Danielle Centeno, and David Mandell. The SIRC Conference Theme Award for a Symposium was presented to Chair: Briana S. Last, Discussant: Gregory Aarons, and co-authors/presenters: Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Rinad S. Beidas, Andrew Quanbeck, Nathaniel Williams, Rebecca Stewart, David S. Mandell, Heather Nuske, and Emily Becker-Haimes. The SIRC Conference Theme Award for an Oral Presentation was presented to Brittany Cooper, Adam Darnell, Angie Funaiole, Kevin Haggerty, and Laura Hill. The SIRC Implementation Practice Award was presented to Robert Franks and Jonathan Scaccia. In addition to the conference awards, we announced the inaugural SIRC Mission Award to acknowledge a team that has made outstanding collaborative contributions to implementation science and practice. The 2019 awardee was Penn Center for Mental Health & Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health for their work implementing evidence-based practices in Philadelphia behavioral health care systems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,057 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».