MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994004588 · doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2011.08.005

What does it mean to transform knowledge into action in falls prevention research? Perspectives from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

2011· article· en· W1994004588 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacqueline Tetroe, Ian D. Graham, Vicky Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Safety Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWarrantKnowledge translationAction (physics)Poison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineKnowledge managementEnvironmental healthBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.285
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.254
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2850.254
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0440.125
Scholarly communication0.0530.032
Open science0.0140.023
Research integrity0.0450.051
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.915
GPT teacher head0.763
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Theoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Safety ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207