Knowledge to Action: The Development of Training Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an overview of curriculum and program development activities at the four Canadian Regional Training Centres directed towards the goal of achieving increased knowledge to action.The RTCs have initiated learning opportunities to increase the skills of graduate students in conducting knowledge translation and exchange (KTE).The authors describe similar as well as unique approaches used at each centre to hone understanding and skills.RTC activities include the development of a new four-year residency program for doctoral students, new Web-based and real-time interactive theory courses and new linkages with departments of journalism.While formal evaluation is yet to be completed, interim feedback from participating graduate students has been encouraging. RésuméCet article présente un aperçu des activités d' élaboration de cours et de programmes d' études entreprises par les quatre Centres régionaux de formation (CRF) dans le but d' accroître le transfert des connaissances à la pratique.Les CRF ont initié des possibilités d' apprentissage visant à accroître les compétences des étudiants des cycles supérieurs dans le domaine de l' application et de l' échange des connaissances (AEC).Les auteurs décrivent les approches similaires et uniques utilisées par chaque centre pour perfectionner les connaissances et les compétences des étudiants.Les activités des CRF comprennent la création d'une résidence de recherche de quatre ans pour les étudiants au doctorat, de nouveaux cours théoriques interactifs sur le Web et en temps réel, et l' établissement de liens avec des départements de journalisme.Quoiqu'une évaluation officielle n' ait toujours pas été effectuée, la rétroaction provisoire des étudiants s' avère encourageante. T Key messages• The need to address the gap between research and policy/practice has created a strong commitment to produce graduates with increased skills in KTE.• Each RTC has promoted KTE with a view to regional needs and local expertise.• KTE training strategies must be evaluated to identify those that are most effective.• Healthcare decision-makers, national funding organizations and KTE experts have played a significant role in graduate student training at the RTCs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".