Partnerships for Knowledge Translation and Exchange in the Context of Continuing Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuing professional development (CPD) is an important vehicle for knowledge translation (KT); however, selecting CPD strategies that will impact health professionals' behavior and improve patient outcomes is complex. In response, we, KT researchers and CPD knowledge users, have recently formed a partnership known as the National Network for Patient-Centered Evidence-Based Continuing Professional Development. The partnership was initiated in 2006 with a series of CIHR Knowledge Translation: Planning, Meetings and Dissemination grants. The objectives of these grants were to bring members of the CPD and KT communities together, determine their interest in working together, identify similarities and differences in the fields of CPD and KT, and develop working groups to inform larger collaborative initiatives to support knowledge translation and exchange. The vision for this partnership is to become a premiere knowledge translation collaboration and a cutting-edge implementation network that informs the provision of CPD across Canada and abroad. This paper reports on the development and outcomes of this network to date.
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 | 0.091 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".