Evidence-Based Practice in Steeltown: A Good Start on Needed Cultural Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation we talk a lot about the need to improve the 'receptor capacity' for research in the health sector (Canadian Health Services Research Foundation 2000). To create a demand for research as well as a supply of it. To encourage and assist clinicians, managers and policymakers in the health system to pull research from academe with as much fervor as applied researchers now bring to publishing it. Browman, Snider and Ellis have done more than talk about and encourage these things - they have implemented them at their own workplace in Hamilton. Their formula is:1. Design a policy-learning forum (Clinical Policy Committee'), where the use of available research is encouraged and expected 2. Create champions (knowledge stewards') responsible for marshalling and presenting the evidence. 3. Provide rules (negotiation') for the dialogue between the operational implications of the research and its budgetary reality. 4. Use story telling to uncover local implementation barriers and make tacit knowledge explicit. The approach is reminiscent of political scientist Paul Sabatier's description of the circumstances under which policy learning occurs (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993) and Brown and Duguid's compelling outline of how information permeates corporate structures (Brown and Duguid 2000). Sabatiers advocacy coalition framework highlights the optimal conditions for learning as: balanced coalitions (in this case, of those behind the research and those behind the finances), enough resources for each side to produce a steady flow of information, an organized forum for debate and clear rules of engagement. In 'The Social Life of Information, 'Brown and Duguid highlight the extent to which modern corporations often leave unrecognized and under-utilized their greatest asset - the tacit knowledge accumulated by each employee over his or her career. They, too, recommend storytelling as a way to liberate this knowledge for wider use. Browman and colleagues 'practical realization of Sabatier' advocacy coalition framework and Browns social view of information is refreshing on a number of levels.
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 | 0.183 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.060 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".