MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007362908 · doi:10.2202/1553-3840.1022

Mentorship Programs within a Network to Build Research Literacy & Capacity in Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM) Practitioners

2005· article· en· W2007362908 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsCentennial CollegeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipCapacity buildingLiteracyMedical educationQualitative researchMedicineMultidisciplinary approachKnowledge managementPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A lack of research literacy and capacity has been identified as a key barrier to research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Networks may enable multidisciplinary collaboration between academic researchers and CAM practitioners and provide opportunities for mentoring and capacity building. Little is known about how mentoring can operate within a network and what its potential is as a strategy to increase research literacy and capacity among CAM practitioners. Purpose: To explore how mentoring within a network can be used to build research literacy and capacity amongst CAM practitioners. Methodology: Qualitative method was used for data collection and content analysis. Participants were individuals with knowledge and/or experience in networks and/or mentoring, as well as CAM practitioners. Results: Background: A lack of research literacy and capacity has been identified as a key barrier to research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Networks may enable multidisciplinary collaboration between academic researchers and CAM practitioners and provide opportunities for mentoring and capacity building. Little is known about how mentoring can operate within a network and what its potential is as a strategy to increase research literacy and capacity among CAM practitioners. Purpose: To explore how mentoring within a network can be used to build research literacy and capacity amongst CAM practitioners. Methodology: Qualitative method was used for data collection and content analysis. Participants were individuals with knowledge and/or experience in networks and/or mentoring, as well as CAM practitioners. Results: Some major categories derived from the data were: 1) A network must clearly define the role and goals of mentoring. 2) An infrastructure to support and maintain the mentoring relationship should be in place. 3) A number of barriers and enablers for successful mentoring within a network were addressed. 4) Some issues specific to CAM practitioners’ ability to conduct research were raised. Conclusion: Mentoring was seen as a potentially useful strategy. Ideas for mentoring were suggested, including cooperative models, job shadowing, perceptorship and role modeling. Innovative models were discussed.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.109 · 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