Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the process of facilitating knowledge dissemination using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework, including articulation of findings, barriers, implications, and recommendations. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) are in a unique position to facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based knowledge to front-line staff in health care organizations. At a community acute care hospital in Toronto, Ontario, the collaborative competency of an APN was used to develop partnerships with three units in order to implement interprofessional knowledge dissemination via education sessions. The goal was to increase nurses' knowledge of best practices and, consequently, improve outcomes for nephrology patients under their care. The PARiHS framework was used to facilitate the process of knowledge dissemination. The framework consists of three elements: evidence, context, and facilitation. In order for the implementation of a project to be successful, it is necessary to understand the context of the organization. Implications and recommendations for advance practice nurses will be described.
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 | 0.285 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".