Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge translation is the means by which evidence-based practice is used in health care. Knowledge synthesis, a foundational element of knowledge translation, is a systematic, transparent, reproducible, efficient and scientific approach to identifying and summarising research findings for generalisable and consistent messages. Increasing numbers of knowledge synthesis methods are being applied to various types of research and, although these methods take similar approaches, they vary in rigour, process and resources. This article maps knowledge synthesis methods, by describing the specific stages, approaches and processes, and describes and compares different types of knowledge synthesis to help inform healthcare practitioners and policy makers about various designs. It also recommends a map of knowledge-synthesis designs for international agreement.
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 | 0.527 | 0.654 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.058 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.050 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".