MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996932393 · doi:10.1093/jopart/mus011

Awareness of Evidence-Based Practices by Organizations in a Publicly Funded Smoking Cessation Network

2012· article· en· W1996932393 on OpenAlex
Keith G. Provan, Jonathan E. Beagles, Liesbeth Mercken, Scott J. Leischow

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsQuitlinePublic relationsEmpirical evidenceSmoking cessationPer capitaBusinessArgument (complex analysis)MarketingPublic economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the awareness of evidence based practices by the public organizations that fund services in the North American Quitline Consortium (NAQC). NAQC is a large, publicly funded, goal-directed "whole network," spanning both Canada and the U.S., working to get people to quit smoking. Building on prior research on the dissemination and diffusion of innovation and evidence based practices, and considering differences between network ties that are homophilous versus instrumental, we found that awareness of evidence based practices was highest for quitline funders that were strongly connected directly to researchers and indirectly to the network administrative organization, controlling for quitline spending per capita and decision making locus of control. The findings support the importance of maintaining instrumental (a technical-rational argument) rather than homophilous ties for acquisition of evidence based practice knowledge. The findings also offer ideas for how public networks might be designed and governed to enhance the likelihood that the organizations in the network are better aware of what evidence based practices exist.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.429
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.097 · 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