Organizational Knowledge Creation in the Context of a Professional Development Program: Mixed-Methods Longitudinal Results From the ALPS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec (Canada), the 2004 health system reform brought new challenges for organizations and professionals. To support the reform, the Regional Public Health Directorate of Montreal designed a professional development pilot program, the Health Promotion Laboratory, a strategy to develop and improve health promotion practices and competencies in local health and social services centers. This article reports the results of an analysis of two laboratory sites using a mixed-methods approach and a multiple case study design; the aim was to describe the creation of knowledge through the laboratory and its dissemination in the organization, as well as to identify influencing factors. In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted to collect data on the knowledge creation process and organizational context. Self-administered questionnaires were used four times over the course of each laboratory to measure active participation, commitment, psychological safety, innovation, and satisfaction. Our findings showed that knowledge acquired through participation in the laboratory was disseminated in the host organizations, both through externalization, combination, and, to a lesser extent, internalization. It is highly plausible that team processes and outcomes such as commitment, satisfaction, and innovation influenced this process, as well as contextual factors such as participant turnover, university affiliation, and internal team dynamics. These results show the potential of the laboratory for improving professional practices. They also suggest useful avenues for managers and decision makers interested in implementing such an initiative. Future work should consider the inclusion of other constructs derived from the literature on team effectiveness such as group learning, communication, and skill development.
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".