MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083163432 · doi:10.1177/1075547003262038

Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers’ Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities

2004· article· en· W2083163432 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

VenueScience Communication · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge transferDocumentationPromotion (chess)Knowledge managementDisciplinePublic relationsKnowledge translationOrganizational structureOrganizational learningSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge transfer has become a priority for universities and other publicly funded research institutions. However, researchers working in these settings report certain structural barriers to engaging in knowledge translation activities. This article describes these barriers, situating them in the disjunction between current expectations and the historical tradition of disciplinary authority in academia. The authors review some of the organizational solutions that have been proposed to address this disjunction. This analysis of barriers and solutions suggests that five domains of organizational policy and practice—promotion and tenure, resources and funding, structures, knowledge transfer orientation, and documentation—may be critical to promoting researchers’engagement in knowledge transfer.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.237 · 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