Translating knowledge to practice: An occupational therapy perspective
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
BACKGROUND/AIM: Translating knowledge to practice, also called 'knowledge translation', is increasingly recognised as a driving force to strengthen and improve the healthcare system. How knowledge translation fits with occupational therapy practice deserves examination. METHODS: This paper will explore how an action process model, the Knowledge-To-Action Process, may advance knowledge translation in occupational therapy. Occupational therapists typically view knowledge in a broad sense, encompassing research, tacit knowledge, expert opinion and client evidence. The Knowledge-To-Action Process facilitates application of client, therapist and research knowledge to occupational therapy practice. RESULTS: Examination of knowledge translation through the lens of the Knowledge-To-Action Process creates awareness of the value of client, therapist and research knowledge. It also highlights opportunities as practitioners to implement knowledge translation. CONCLUSIONS: Models able to flexibly reflect an occupational therapy perspective of knowledge have a potentially vital role in successful knowledge translation. Furthermore, these models allow therapists and other stakeholders to analyse complex situations and identify targeted knowledge translation strategies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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