MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018046779 · doi:10.1332/174426410x524839

Some Canadian contributions to understanding knowledge mobilisation

2010· article· en· W2018046779 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Field (mathematics)Empirical researchRelation (database)Public sectorPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge mobilisation (KM) is our label for the emerging field of inquiry that seeks to strengthen connections between research, policy and practice across sectors, disciplines and countries. This paper first outlines the challenges associated with improving KM across public services. Next, it examines contributions from the health sector (findings and implications of empirical work on KM being conducted by two teams of Canadian scholars) in relation to the education sector and the broader field. Then, it outlines the Research Supporting Practice in Education (RSPE) programme (including products, events, networks and empirical studies), which attempts to increase KM in education. The paper concludes with some ideas and strategies that can be done quickly and easily to improve KM almost immediately in any organisation as well as with suggestions for further research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.364 · 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