MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331109495 · doi:10.1332/174426412x660089

Knowledge integration in public health: a rapid review using systems thinking

2012· review· en· W2331109495 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsImpactNutrasourceUniversity of Waterloo
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsRelevance (law)Knowledge managementPublic healthComputer scienceManagement sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are tradeoffs in knowledge synthesis – for example, between comprehensiveness and timeliness, between generalisability and policy relevance. The tradeoffs are particularly challenging for public health. A growing international community is grappling with building more relevant and useful knowledge bases, to facilitate use of this knowledge in policy and practice. These questions guided a knowledge synthesis using a novel ‘rapid review’ methodology. The synthesis used complex adaptive systems as a theoretical lens, in collaboration with an international expert panel. Findings strengthen the call for a systems paradigm in public health, extending theoretical propositions to empirical studies of knowledge generation and use.

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 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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.804
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.214 · 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