Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Knowledge translationthe ubiquity of this term extends to policy, scholarship, and practice, internationally.This ubiquity is particularly the case in healthcare.Consider the efforts of several international bodies to promote knowledge translationthese bodies include the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2015, n.d.), the National Health and Medical Research Council (n.d.) in Australia, and the National Health Service in the United Kingdom (Stansfield & South, 2018).Thus, this special issue on the sociological aspects of knowledge translation is important, timely, and particularly relevant to the sociology of health, illness, and medicine.This is for four key reasons.First, given different (if not heightened) societal expectations, many government bodies and international organisations now expect different knowledges to be represented in research about health(care).Second, the processes through which different knowledges coalesce demonstrate the myriad interactions between society and health.Third, knowledge translation requires sociologically informed scholarship that accounts for how social interactions and political processes influence health, illness, and medicine.And fourth, First Nations Peoples have emphasised that knowledge translation should be grounded in respect for diverse knowledges and that it should operate relationally rather than uni-directionally.Furthermore, making knowledge translation foundational to research design and communication provides an opportunity to demonstrate respect for First Nations People's enduring connections to Country, intergenerational responsibilities, and knowledge of communities (Williams & Marlin, 2022).This special issue represents a complement of formative and thought-provoking articles that collectively advance the sociological aspects of knowledge translation.Reflecting a sociology of knowledge translation (Kitto et al., 2012), the authors of each contribution recognise knowledge translation as the processes through which different knowledge coalesce to inform how we feel, think, and behave.These knowledges include (but are not limited to) evidence born from research, lived experiences, cultural values, and spiritual awareness.The articles that collectively represent this special issue offer several astute contributions.For instance, they demonstrate some of the many forms of knowledge translation.They reveal how knowledge translation can helpfully problematise historical and contemporary social issues.They highlight the methodologies and research methods that can helpfully advance the scholarship of knowledge translation.They verify the importance of collaboration in approaches to knowledge translation.And they establish how knowledge translation research can prompt and sustain change.For instance, Heinsch and colleagues (2023) consider the 'dense and intricate relationships, values, politics, and interests that determine whose knowledge counts, who gets to speak, who is spoken for, and with what consequences, in the translation and implementation of scientific knowledge'.They problematise the assumption that there is one objective science and argue that implementation science has a key role in ensuring that the traditional dominance of particular voices and institutional structures is critiqued.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».