MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1794910941 · doi:10.21432/t24881

How Research Moves into Practice: A Preliminary Study of What Training Professionals Read, Hear, and Perceive

2009· article· en· W1794910941 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary sciencePsychologyProfessional developmentMedical educationHumanitiesPedagogyMedicineArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the growing body of research on the practice of training and development, several studies suggest that use of research-based findings in practice is low. The present study was designed to better understand the research-practice gap by exploring these questions: (1) Which published sources in the field are practicing professionals reading? How frequently do they read these materials? (2) Which conferences and meetings do practicing professionals attend? How frequently do they attend these events? (3) In what formats are research content most usable to practicing professionals? (4) What are practicing professionals’ general perceptions of research publications and presentations? Key findings point to publications having a wider reach among practicing professionals than conferences and, of those publications, professional magazines have a wider reach than peer-reviewed journals. In terms of the manner in which the content is presented, practicing professionals prefer case studies from the workplace over other types of content. Résumé : Dans le corpus croissant de recherches portant sur la pratique de la formation et du perfectionnement, plusieurs études suggèrent une faible utilisation des résultats de recherche dans la pratique. La présente étude a été conçue afin de mieux comprendre l’écart entre la recherche et la pratique par l’examen des questions suivantes : (1) Quelles sources de publications du domaine les professionnels pratiquants lisent-ils? À quelle fréquence lisent-ils ces publications? (2) À quelles conférences et réunions les professionnels pratiquants assistent-ils? À quelle fréquence assistent-ils à ces événements? (3) Dans quels formats les contenus de recherche sont-ils le plus facilement utilisables par les professionnels pratiquants? (4) Quelles sont les perceptions générales des professionnels pratiquants envers les publications et présentations de recherche? Les résultats principaux indiquent que les publications rejoignent davantage de professionnels pratiquants que les conférences et que, parmi ces publications, les magazines spécialisés ont une portée plus vaste que les publications évaluées par les pairs. En ce qui concerne la manière dont le contenu est présenté, les professionnels pratiquants préfèrent les études de cas en milieu de travail aux autres types de contenu.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it