MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129645470 · doi:10.1332/174426413x667784

Qualities of knowledge brokers: reflections from practice

2013· article· en· W2129645470 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David Phipps, Sarah Morton

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsKnowledge managementPublic relationsFocus (optics)Knowledge creationBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsMarketingEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employing knowledge brokers is one way that universities and research centres have responded to the increasing emphasis on the wider usefulness and uptake of research beyond the academy. While there is an increase in the numbers of such professionals, there has been little focus on their roles, skills and development. In this paper, two knowledge exchange directors from Canada and the United Kingdom reflect on their combined experiences of being, developing and employing knowledge brokers in a range of roles.

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 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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.047
Scholarly communication0.0260.028
Open science0.0040.021
Research integrity0.0110.013
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & PolicySame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207