MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338361602 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v59i2.55613

Research Mediation in Education: A Typology of Research Brokering Organizations That Exist Across Canada

2014· article· en· W2338361602 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Amanda Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTypologyPolitical scienceSociologyHumanitiesTerminologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the increasingly prominent role of research brokering organizations (RBOs) in strengthening connections between education research, policy and practice across Canada. This paper is organized in three sections. First, it provides a literature review of research mediation– exploring terminology, models and empirical work (albeit sparse) across health, business, education sectors. The second section provides three conceptual contributions to the field: RBOs’ roles in knowledge mobilization occurring in the white space of broader public service systems, a typology of Canadian RBOs that exist in education using four broad categories: governmental, not-for-profit, for-profit and membership RBOs, and a knowledge brokering framework along seven dimensions: mission, resources, staff roles, political affiliation, autonomy, message and linkages. The third section provides empirical data about the frequency and types of RBOs that exist across Canada. Cet article explore le rôle de plus en plus important que jouent les organismes de médiation de la recherche dans la consolidation des liens entre les politiques et la pratique en matière de recherche en éducation partout au Canada. L’article se divise en trois sections. D’abord, on y présente une revue de la littérature portant sur la médiation de la recherche et évoquant la terminologie, les modèles et le travail empirique (quoique limités) qui touchent les secteurs de la santé, des affaires et de l’éducation. La deuxième section contribue trois concepts au domaine : les rôles que jouent les organismes de médiation de la recherche dans la mobilisation des connaissances dans les « espaces vides » de la fonction publique en général; une typologie des organismes canadiens de médiation de la recherche en éducation selon quatre grandes catégories (gouvernemental, sans but lucratif, à but lucratif et composé de membres) et un cadre portant sur la médiation de la recherche et axé sur sept dimensions (mission, ressources, rôles du personnel, affiliation politique, autonomie, messages et liens). La troisième section offre des données empiriques sur la fréquence et les types d’organismes de médiation de la recherche qui existent au Canada.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207