MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consulting as a Strategy for Knowledge Transfer

2005· article· en· W2110213970 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMilbank Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsKnowledge transferWork (physics)Knowledge managementDisseminationPopulation healthBusinessHealth carePublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic researchers who work on health policy and health services are expected to transfer knowledge to decision makers. Decision makers often do not, however, regard academics' traditional ways of doing research and disseminating their findings as relevant or useful. This article argues that consulting can be a strategy for transferring knowledge between researchers and decision makers and is effective at promoting the "enlightenment" and "interactive" models of knowledge use. Based on three case studies, it develops a model of knowledge transfer-focused consulting that consists of six stages and four types of work. Finally, the article explores how knowledge is generated in consulting and identifies several classes of factors facilitating its use by decision makers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.511
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.132 · 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