Developing an inventory of ongoing/unpublished arts and narrative-based approaches as knowledge translation strategies in health care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Systematic review is an essential component of evidence-based health care, yet limited to published academic literature. We aimed to augment an ongoing systematic review on the use of art and narrative as knowledge translation (KT) strategies.Methods: We describe the development of an exploratory process to complement systematic reviews through locating ongoing or unpublished projects. Data were collected through email communication, social media and a secondary analysis of an ongoing database of projects that involve arts in the health care field. Information gathered included: project title, focus, arts or narrative approaches used, anticipated completion date and links to relevant social media, webpages and applicable materials.Results: The inventory captures the ways in which arts and narrative-based KT initiatives are used within a health care context beyond formal research literature.Conclusions: This exploratory process would facilitate updating systematic reviews later while simultaneously capture themes and emerging ideas in unpublished works.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it