Knowledge transfer & exchange through social networks: building foundations for a community of practice within tobacco control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health services and population health innovations advance when knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) occurs among researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and consumers using high-quality evidence. However, few KTE models have been evaluated in practice. Communities of practice (CoP) - voluntary, self-organizing, and focused groups of individuals and organizations - may provide one option. This paper outlines an approach to lay the foundation for a CoP within the area of Web-assisted tobacco interventions (WATI). The objectives of the study were to provide a data-driven foundation to inform decisions about organizing a CoP within the geographically diverse, multi-disciplinary WATI group using evaluation and social network methodologies. METHODS: A single-group design was employed using a survey of expectations, knowledge, and interpersonal WATI-related relationships administered prior to a meeting of the WATI group followed by a 3-week post-meeting Web survey to assess short-term impact on learning and networking outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 27 WATI attendees (85%) from diverse disciplinary and practice backgrounds completed the baseline survey, with 21 (91%) of those participants completing the three-week follow-up. Participants had modest expectations of the meeting at baseline. A social network map produced from the data illustrated a centralized, yet sparse network comprising of interdisciplinary teams with little trans-sectoral collaboration. Three-week follow-up survey results showed that participants had made new network connections and had actively engaged in KTE activities with WATI members outside their original network. CONCLUSION: Data illustrating both the shape and size of the WATI network as well as member's interests and commitment to KTE, when shared and used to frame action steps, can positively influence the motivation to collaborate and create communities of practice. Guiding KTE planning through blending data and theory can create more informed transdisciplinary and trans-sectoral collaboration environments.
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 | 0.039 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".