Facilitating and Impeding Factors for Knowledge Translation in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Results from a Consultation Workshop in <scp>I</scp>ran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The authors report on the outcome of a consultation workshop held in Iran, which focused on knowledge translation (KT) and intellectual and developmental disability (IDD). The goal was to learn more about the contextual factors that facilitate and impede KT in applications related to IDD in Iran. Forty‐six stakeholders participated, representing the perspectives of policy‐makers, administrators, parents, practitioners, and researchers. The authors introduced a conceptual framework for KT and assessed KT capacity using a validated tool. They facilitated discussions among stakeholder groups with respect to contextual facilitating and impeding factors, and suggested ways to improve IDD‐related KT activities in Iran. The authors found that all of the stakeholder groups highly valued research, but there were statistically significant differences among the participating stakeholder groups in acquiring, accessing, adapting, and applying research information to their practice. A number of factors, including the existing connections between parents and practitioners, could potentially facilitate the development of collaborative KT strategies. A lack of time, incentives, and resources were reported by all stakeholder groups as impeding factors for KT in IDD. The authors believe the researchers in Iran need to work closer with stakeholder groups to develop KT strategies with respect to IDD and thus achieve more effective dissemination of research findings that affect policy and practice.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | medium |
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 | 0.076 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".