Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptual, methodological, and practical issues await those who seek to understand how to make better use of health services research in developing public policy. Some policies and some policymaking processes may lend themselves particularly well to being informed by research. Different conclusions about the extent to which policymaking is informed by research may arise from different views about what constitutes health services research (is it citable research or any professional social inquiry that can aid in problem solving?) or different views about what constitutes research use (is it explicit uses of research only, or does it also include tacit knowledge or the positions of stakeholders when they are informed by research and are influential in the policymaking process?). Some conditions may favor the use of research in policymaking, like sustained interactions between researchers and policymakers. Results from an exploratory study on the use of health services research by Canadian provincial policymakers illustrate these issues.
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 | 0.346 | 0.448 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.047 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".