Improving Research Transfer in the Addictions Field: A Perspective from Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses how to enhance the research-to-practice exchange in the addictions field, while maintaining a balance with the demands and complexities of program delivery and policy development. It outlines the evolution of the concept of evidence-based practice, discusses the practical limitations and ways to improve transferring research to practice, and provides examples of research transfer activities in Canada. Practical limitations to research transfer include individual, organizational, and community factors. A strategic approach to research transfer includes addressing these limitations by combining dissemination activities with interventions such as individual instruction and incentives; building relationships among researchers, practitioners, and populations served; and obtaining commitments at a systemic level from funding bodies and research organizations to support research transfer. The potential is noted for the concept of workforce development to facilitate research transfer at organizational levels. The conclusion shown in this paper is that the tools and concept of evidence-based practice can lead the way to strengthening addictions programs and policies, and the development of a conceptual model for addiction research transfer in Canada would be a useful next step.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it