Closing the chasm between research and practice: evidence of and for change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The usual remedy suggested for bridging the science-to-practice gap is to improve the efficiency of disseminating the evidence-based practices to practitioners. This reflection on the gap takes the position that it is the relevance and fit of the evidence with the majority of practices that limit its applicability and application in health promotion and related behavioural, community and population-level interventions where variations in context, values and norms make uniform interventions inappropriate. To make the evidence more relevant and actionable to practice settings and populations will require reforms at many points in the research-to-practice pipeline. These points in the pipeline are described and remedies for them suggested.
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
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | MetaresearchScholarly communication Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
| grok | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| opus | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
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 | 0.453 | 0.674 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.050 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".