Continuing education, guideline implementation, and the emerging transdisciplinary field of knowledge translation
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 article discusses continuing education and the implementation of clinical practice guidelines or best evidence, quality improvement, and patient safety. Continuing education focuses on the perspective of the adult learner and is guided by well-established educational principles. In contrast, guideline implementation and related concepts borrow from the fields of quality improvement and patient safety and from health services research. Relative to the question of improved clinical outcomes, both to some extent afford only partial understanding of a complex issue. Knowledge translation (KT) is a transformative concept that links the best elements of both broad fields and, in particular, adds educational elements to the work of health services researchers and others. Interdisciplinary in the extreme, KT is explored in some detail: its major elements (information, facilitation, context, the clinician-learner, among others) considered as variables in an equation leading to knowledge uptake and improved health care outcomes and an improved functioning health care system.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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