MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742989314 · doi:10.7728/0102201002

Knowledge Transfer in Community-Based Organizations: A Needs Assessment Study

2017· article· en· W2742989314 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Community Psychology Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementKnowledge transferSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research-based knowledge remains relatively underutilized by social practitioners. Many studies have shown that, in order to be used, research results have to be compatible with users’ needs and beliefs. The purpose of this needs assessment study was to identify the priority needs of community-based organization practitioners in terms of new research-based knowledge. The first phase of the study focused on a large-scale survey designed to identify what kind of information should be more available to practitioners. In this phase, we used concept mapping technology to construct a graphic representation of the participants’ main concerns. In the second phase, we conducted focus groups to develop a knowledge transfer strategy that takes into account the identified needs.

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 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.315
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Community Psychology PracticeSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207