MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Guidance for organisational strategy on knowledge to action from conceptual frameworks and practice

2016· article· en· W2597745426 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Set (abstract data type)Conceptual frameworkKnowledge managementKey (lock)Work (physics)Conceptual modelProcess managementComputer scienceManagement scienceBusinessSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to provide public health organisations involved in chronic disease prevention with conceptual and practical guidance for developing contextually sensitive knowledge-to-action (KTA) strategies. Methods involve an analysis of 13 relevant conceptual KTA frameworks, and a review of three case examples of organisations with active KTA agendas. From this analysis, this paper identifies and discusses four key principles for enhancing organisational KTA strategy: (1) align knowledge production and action; (2) foster connections among relevant stakeholders; (3) understand and work with key contextual factors; and (4) consider a diverse yet coherent set of KTA activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.734
GPT teacher head0.720
Teacher spread0.013 · 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