MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091552216 · doi:10.1080/14748460.2011.550431

Mobilising research knowledge in education

2011· article· en· W2091552216 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon Review of Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)State (computer science)Empirical researchSociologyEducational researchPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogyEngineering ethicsEngineeringEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of knowledge mobilisation (KM) addresses the multiple ways in which stronger connections can be made between research, policy and practice. This paper reviews the current situation around knowledge mobilisation in education. It addresses changing understandings of KM, considers some of the main issues in conducting empirical research in the field, and looks at the state of activity to promote and increase KM, offering commentary and suggestions in each area.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.030
Scholarly communication0.0220.023
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.168 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations164
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon Review of EducationSame topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207