Sharing of Lessons Learned From Multisite Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To highlight key considerations for planning and implementing multisite research based on experiences and reflections in conducting a large, international, multisite study. DESCRIPTION: Successes and challenges encountered throughout a multisite study process, and collective recommendations for future researchers are presented. Considerations addressed include creation of the research team and a "community of practice," study preparation and management time, approval by institutional review boards, training of future researchers, recruitment and retention of participants, and dissemination and translation of study materials to consumers. IMPORTANCE TO MEMBERS: Multisite research has the potential to create knowledge for pediatric physical therapy through collaboration among knowledgeable researchers and expert practitioners and by increasing the potential for generalization of findings. Effective planning, including anticipation of challenges, is critical to a successful study. Our collective experiences may assist practitioners and researchers in planning, implementing, and completing future multisite studies.
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 | 0.298 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".