MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199221161 · doi:10.1155/2013/671894

Introducing the Canadian Thoracic Society Framework for Guideline Dissemination and Implementation, with Concurrent Evaluation

2013· article· en· W2199221161 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samir Gupta, Christopher Licskai, Anne Van Dam, Louis‐Philippe Boulet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityCanadian Lung AssociationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineKnowledge translationProcess managementMedicinePsychological interventionKnowledge managementComputer scienceBusinessNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) is leveraging its strengths in guideline production to enable respiratory guideline implementation in Canada. The authors describe the new CTS Framework for Guideline Dissemination and Implementation, with Concurrent Evaluation, which has three spheres of action: guideline production, implementation infrastructure and knowledge translation (KT) methodological support. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research 'Knowledge-to-Action' process was adopted as the model of choice for conceptualizing KT interventions. Within the framework, new evidence for formatting guideline recommendations to enhance the intrinsic implementability of future guidelines were applied. Clinical assemblies will consider implementability early in the guideline production cycle when selecting clinical questions, and new practice guidelines will include a section dedicated to KT. The framework describes the development of a web-based repository and communication forum to inventory existing KT resources and to facilitate collaboration and communication among implementation stakeholders through an online discussion board. A national forum for presentation and peer-review of proposed KT projects is described. The framework outlines expert methodological support for KT planning, development and evaluation including a practical guide for implementers and a novel 'Clinical Assembly-KT Action Team', and in-kind logistical support and assistance in securing peer-reviewed funding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.327
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207