Using a Knowledge Translation Lens to Develop International Collaborations to Improve the Health of Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This report describes the process used at the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities Health Issues Special Interest Research Group's 2009 Roundtable to increase awareness of the importance of, and opportunities for, knowledge translation to improve the health of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) through international collaboration. The “knowledge‐to‐action cycle” (i.e., knowledge translation) formed the basis for the roundtable discussions. The thematic areas discussed included identification and reduction of disability in adults who also have epilepsy, obesity in children and adults, adapting health promotion materials and approaches, and policy and practice healthcare management—all related to individuals with ID. The topics were explored, extant information presented, and agreements reached for further work and collaborations in each of the topic areas. It was noted that the roundtable's use of the knowledge‐to‐action framework helped the participants focus on bringing together existing knowledge in ways that can meaningfully influence policy and practice. A pre‐workshop web‐based forum allowed participants to share information and recognize the need for synthesis and tool development. Multidisciplinary working groups that are international in scope can be useful in continuing to work toward increasing awareness of the knowledge‐to‐action cycle and promoting collaborative health research in the area of health and ID.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.431 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".