MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076506561 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16939

Evidence, Interests and Knowledge Translation: Reflections of an Unrepentant Zombie Chaser

2005· article· en· W2076506561 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZombieKnowledge translationCommissionKnowledge transferSociologyPolitical scienceKnowledge managementLawComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Justice Emmett Hall's landmark 1964 Royal Commission report is remarkable as, among other things, a very early Canadian example of successful knowledge brokering. It predates by about three decades even the earliest discourse in Canadian health research circles about knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge brokers, and the like.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.190
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.235
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1900.235
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0450.126
Scholarly communication0.0460.046
Open science0.0070.031
Research integrity0.0590.085
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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207