Partnerships in public health: lessons from knowledge translation and program planning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand how partnerships are initiated, maintained, and sustained in public health practice. A qualitative design was employed to conduct individual interviews and focus groups. The participants included practitioners from 6 purposively selected public health units in the Canadian province of Ontario that developed partnerships in program planning. It was found that partnerships play an essential role in program planning but that minimal information is available regarding the partnership process. Most partnerships are formed on an ad hoc basis, with little formalization. Public health professionals rely on their experiential knowledge when seeking out and working with partners.These findings can serve to inform future public health planning and strengthen the formation and maintenance of partnerships in public health and other sectors. Understanding how partnerships are initiated, maintained, and sustained is an important first step in supporting the use of research to advance collaborative public health efforts.
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 | 0.117 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".