MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2103669116 · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-54

Applications of social constructivist learning theories in knowledge translation for healthcare professionals: a scoping review

2014· review· en· W2103669116 on OpenAlexafffund
Aliki Thomas, Anita Menon, Jill Boruff, Ana María Rodríguez, Sara Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsCINAHLConstructivism (international relations)Social constructivismKnowledge translationPsycINFOHealth careConstructivist teaching methodsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)EpistemologyMEDLINEMedicinePsychologySociologyKnowledge managementSocial scienceNursingComputer sciencePedagogyPoliticsTeaching methodPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
grokMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0570.052
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.755
GPT teacher head0.793
Teacher spread0.038 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

Meta-epidemiology (broad)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designOther design · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations326
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImplementation Science→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→CategoryMeta-epidemiology (broad)→French-language works237,207→