Evidence-Informed Primary Bereavement Care: A Study Protocol of a Knowledge-to-Action Approach for Systems Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a systems change approach to knowledge-to-action, the purpose of this study is to increase organizational and practitioner uptake of an evidence-informed primary bereavement care guideline in home and community care through a researcher-knowledge-user partnership. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a single case study design will be used to examine system change in its natural context. The project integrates an organizational change initiative and a research study. Multiple data collection and analysis strategies will be used to explore and map the interactive synergistic process of interconnected decisions and actions. Iterative cycles of analysis and feedback will incite knowledge-user reflection and action, shape and substantiate findings, use data in a timely fashion to inform and guide next steps, and ensure ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the process.
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 | 0.175 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".