MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966877404 · doi:10.1258/135581903322405162

Creating a new articulation between research and practice through policy? The views and experiences of researchers and practitioners

2003· article· en· W1966877404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Louis Denis, Pascale Lehoux, Myriam Hivon, François Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Services Research & Policy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArticulation (sociology)PsychologyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceMedical educationMedicinePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In 1990, the Quebec Social Research Council - a body financing social research in Quebec, Canada - launched a new policy encouraging the development of social research units within health care organizations. Through financial incentives, it encouraged the implementation of long-term collaborations between researchers and practitioners with the purpose of transforming both scientific knowledge production and professional practices. This paper examines the perceptions of researchers and practitioners regarding the attributes and the usefulness of this collaborative research policy. METHODS: A self-administered survey was sent to all the researchers (n = 146; response rate 78.1%) and practitioners (n = 204; response rate 44.1%) involved in the 21 collaborative research teams funded in 1998. T-tests were performed in order to assess the difference between the perceptions of researchers and practitioners in five key dimensions of collaborative research. RESULTS: The results showed that, contrary to expectations, researchers and practitioners shared fairly similar views regarding the various dimensions of collaborative research. They both agreed that their involvement within collaborative research teams had contributed to the development of new skills and practices but had not facilitated their participation in external activities nor their involvement in networks and organizations that influence environments in which public policies and practices are deployed. They also both encountered some difficulties in putting the dimensions that they highly valued into practice. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative research within health care organizations succeeded in fostering the implementation of new modes of knowledge production and intervention. Nevertheless, special attention needs to be given to the development of strategies to reduce the discrepancies between values and practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.375
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.249
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3750.249
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0220.134
Scholarly communication0.0640.051
Open science0.0060.030
Research integrity0.0200.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.841
GPT teacher head0.777
Teacher spread0.064 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Services Research & PolicySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207