Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While there is increasing interest in research related to so-called Knowledge Translation, much of this research is undertaken from the perspective of researchers. The objective of this paper is to explore, through the participatory evaluation of Manitoba's The Need to Know Project, the characteristics of effective knowledge translation initiatives from the perspective of community partners. METHODS: The multi-method evaluation adopted a utilization-focused approach, where stakeholders participated in identifying evaluation questions, and methods were made transparent to participants. Over 100 open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted with project stakeholders over the first three years of the project. These interviews explored the perspectives of participants on all aspects of project development. Formal feedback processes allowed further refinement of emerging theory. RESULTS: This research suggests that there has been insufficient emphasis on personal factors in knowledge translation. The themes of 'quality of relationships' and 'trust' connected many different components of knowledge translation, and were essential for collaborative research. Organizational barriers and lack of confidence in researchers present greater challenges to knowledge translation than individual interest or community capacity. The costs of participation in collaborative research for community partners and the benefits for researchers, also require greater attention. CONCLUSIONS: Participation of community partners in The Need to Know Project has provided unique perspectives on knowledge translation theory. It has identified limitations to the common interpretations of knowledge translation principles and highlighted the characteristics of collaborative research initiatives that are of greatest importance to community partners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it