MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531067523 · doi:10.22215/timreview/1018

Mobilizing Knowledge: The Evidence Gap for Assistive Devices

2016· article· en· W2531067523 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Edward D. Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Innovation Management Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceSample (material)Quality (philosophy)Process (computing)MobilizationBusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceProcess managementPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionKnowledge mobilization relies on evidence of sufficient quality to enable appropriate decision making. Although many established sectors produce well-controlled research with sufficient sample sizes to guide decision making confidently, the knowledge mobilization process is challenged in sectors where the pace of change outpaces the ability to complete high-quality

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.284
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.284
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Innovation Management ReviewSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207