MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312922415 · doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e318215a4ae

Research, Practice, and Policy Partnerships in Pan-Canadian Coalitions for Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention

2011· article· en· W2312922415 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth Manafò, Lisa Petermann, Rebecca Lobb, Deb Keen, Jon Kerner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Management and Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGeneral partnershipParticipatory action researchTransparency (behavior)Public relationsContext (archaeology)Political scienceCancer preventionBusinessMedicineSociologyCancerGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development stages of the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer to support research, practice, and policy coalitions focused on cancer and chronic disease prevention in Canada. DESIGN: Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention was implemented in 3 stages. This article describes Stage 1 that consisted of an online concept-mapping consultation process, 3 topic specific networking and consultation workshops, and 3 context-specific networking, coalition development, and planning meetings. These were all completed using a participatory engagement approach to encourage knowledge exchange across jurisdictions and sectors in Canada. SETTING: Toronto, Ontario; Calgary, Alberta; Montreal, Québec; and Ottawa, Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: More than 500 researchers, practitioners, and policy specialists were invited to take part in the first stage activities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Participant-identified high-priority opportunities for strategic collaboration; (2) Cross-jurisdictional and cross-sector representation; and (3) Participant feedback on the CLASP processes and activities. RESULTS: Participants from Stage 1 activities were distributed across all provinces/territories; 3 jurisdictional levels; and research, practice, and policy sectors. Ninety priority opportunities for strategic collaboration were identified across all 3 workshops. Participants provided detailed feedback about transparency of the RFP (Request for Proposals) application process, support needed to level the playing field for potential applicants, and valuable suggestions for the adjudication process. CONCLUSIONS: Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention engaged hundreds of research, practice, and policy experts across Canada focusing social-behavioral, clinical, and environmental and occupational opportunities for cancer and chronic disease prevention. Given the extent of expert and jurisdictional engagement, the substantial Partnership investment in a participatory engagement approach to RFP development and potential applicant response suggests that efforts to link cancer and chronic disease prevention efforts across jurisdictions and through research, practice, and policy collaboration may require this type of a priori investment in networking, communication, coordination, and collaboration.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.870
GPT teacher head0.717
Teacher spread0.154 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207