Knowledge Translation: Moving Proteomics Science to Innovation in Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteomics is one of the pivotal next-generation biotechnologies in the current "postgenomics" era. Little is known about the ways in which innovative proteomics science is navigating the complex socio-political space between laboratory and society. It cannot be assumed that the trajectory between proteomics laboratory and society is linear and unidirectional. Concerned about public accountability and hopes for knowledge-based innovations, funding agencies and citizens increasingly expect that emerging science and technologies, such as proteomics, are effectively translated and disseminated as innovation in society. Here, we describe translation strategies promoted in the knowledge translation (KT) and science communication literatures and examine the use of these strategies within the field of proteomics. Drawing on data generated from qualitative interviews with proteomics scientists and ethnographic observation of international proteomics conferences over a 5-year period, we found that proteomics science incorporates a variety of KT strategies to reach knowledge users outside the field. To attain the full benefit of KT, however, proteomics scientists must challenge their own normative assumptions and approaches to innovation dissemination-beyond the current paradigm relying primarily on publication for one's scientific peers within one's field-and embrace the value of broader (interdisciplinary) KT strategies in promoting the uptake of their research. Notably, the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) is paying increasing attention to a broader range of KT strategies, including targeted dissemination, integrated KT, and public outreach. We suggest that increasing the variety of KT strategies employed by proteomics scientists is timely and would serve well the omics system sciences community.
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 | 0.049 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".