MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge translation to advance evidence-based health policy in Thailand

2016· article· en· W2597416718 on OpenAlexafffund
Lianlian Ti, Kanna Hayashi, Lianping Ti, Karyn Kaplan, Paisan Suwannawong, Thomas Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChulalongkorn UniversityMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsKnowledge translationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Bridge (graph theory)Political scienceScientific evidencePublic relationsHealth policyMedicineKnowledge managementNursingPublic healthFamily medicineComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant gaps between scientific evidence and policy have resulted in growing interest in the role that knowledge translation (KT) can play in informing evidence-based policy. The Mitsampan Community Research Project, in consultation with the local community of people who inject drugs, developed a comprehensive KT strategy that aimed to translate research into policy related to HIV and illicit drug use in Bangkok, Thailand. Though barriers to KT activities were experienced, findings suggest that KT has the potential to facilitate dialogue and policy change. Further development and evaluation are needed to refine KT approaches and thereby bridge evidence and policy.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.687
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.003 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & PolicySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207