National Consultation Leads to Agrivita Research to Practice Plan for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A gap exists between research development and its implementation in agricultural health and safety. In order to fill this gap, the goal of this project was to consult agricultural stakeholders across Canada in order to identify the health and safety priorities in research and knowledge translation, and then to propose an approach to bridge the gap. Between April and August 2007, "A National Stakeholder Consultation on Health and Safety Research and its Effective Translation to the Agricultural Sector" was initiated by the Canadian Centre for Heath and Safety in Agriculture. The experiences and opinions of stakeholders across Canada were gathered through focus groups with over 150 participants in seven Canadian provinces and a survey of 289 individuals across Canada. Stakeholders identified a range of health and safety research priorities. Chemical exposure, stress, and farm safety issues were immediate concerns and issues surrounding labor and trained workers, whereas health problems and environmental issues were long-term concerns. Results identified research and knowledge translation priorities, which provided elements for a proposed program aiming at bridging the gap existing between research development and its translation into practice. A request for a knowledge translation/transfer mechanism, where all agricultural stakeholders from researchers to end users are involved in the process, was identified. Findings from the national consultation were used to develop a business plan entitled "Agrivita Research to Practice Program: A Partnership Plan for Health and Safety and its Effective Transfer to the Agricultural Sector in Canada." The plan provides for a coordinated and integrated approach in Canada, conceptually drawing on the American experience established by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".