A model for successful research partnerships: A New Brunswick experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of a partnership model used to conduct a research study entitled "Needs of patients with cancer and their family members in New Brunswick Health Region 3 (NBHR3)" (Tamlyn-Leaman, Creelman, & Fisher, 1997). This partial replication study carried out by the three authors between 1995 and 1997 was a needs assessment, adapted with permission from previous work by Fitch, Vachon, Greenberg, Saltmarche, and Franssen (1993). In order to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment with limited resources, a partnership between academic, public, and private sectors was established. An illustration of this partnership is presented in the model entitled "A Client-Centred Partnership Model." The operations of this partnership, including the strengths, the perceived benefits, lessons learned by each partner, the barriers, and the process for conflict resolution, are described. A summary of the cancer care initiatives undertaken by NBHR3, which were influenced directly or indirectly by the recommendations from this study, is included.
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 | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".