Knowledge translation and occupational therapy: A survey of Canadian university programs
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
While Canadian occupational therapy recognizes knowledge translation (KT) as essential to clinical interactions, there has been little attention paid to KT activity in education and research. The objective of this study was to identify the nature of KT activities in which Canadian occupational therapy faculty engage. An electronic survey was sent to faculty at 14 Canadian occupational therapy programs to explore the nature of KT activities, including research, education, strategies, evaluation, and barriers and facilitators. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results show that faculty engage in a range of KT activities, with conferences and peer-reviewed publications being the most common. Faculty collaborate frequently with researchers at their institutions and favor both integrated and end-of-grant KT. Collaboration and personal interest were identified as facilitators; time and funding were seen as barriers. Understanding the profile of KT activity across universities creates opportunities for developing institutional and pan-Canadian plans to enhance KT training and capacity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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