The Development of a Classification Schema for Arts‐Based Approaches to Knowledge Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arts-based approaches to knowledge translation are emerging as powerful interprofessional strategies with potential to facilitate evidence uptake, communication, knowledge, attitude, and behavior change across healthcare provider and consumer groups. These strategies are in the early stages of development. To date, no classification system for arts-based knowledge translation exists, which limits development and understandings of effectiveness in evidence syntheses. PURPOSE: We developed a classification schema of arts-based knowledge translation strategies based on two mechanisms by which these approaches function: (a) the degree of precision in key message delivery, and (b) the degree of end-user participation. We demonstrate how this classification is necessary to explore how context, time, and location shape arts-based knowledge translation strategies. DISCUSSION: Classifying arts-based knowledge translation strategies according to their core attributes extends understandings of the appropriateness of these approaches for various healthcare settings and provider groups. The classification schema developed may enhance understanding of how, where, and for whom arts-based knowledge translation approaches are effective, and enable theorizing of essential knowledge translation constructs, such as the influence of context, time, and location on utilization strategies. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The classification schema developed may encourage systematic inquiry into the effectiveness of these approaches in diverse interprofessional contexts.
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 | 0.068 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".