Pursuing common agendas: A collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an emerging discourse of knowledge translation that advocates a shift away from unidirectional research utilization and evidence-based practice models toward more interactive models of knowledge transfer. In this paper, we describe how our participatory approach to knowledge translation developed during an ongoing program of research concerning equitable care for diverse populations. At the core of our approach is a collaborative relationship between researchers and practitioners, which underpins the knowledge translation cycle, and occurs simultaneously with data collection/analysis/synthesis. We discuss lessons learned including: the complexities of translating knowledge within the political landscape of healthcare delivery, the need to negotiate the agendas of researchers and practitioners in a collaborative approach, and the kinds of resources needed to support this process.
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 | 0.297 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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.
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".