MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AskFuse origins: system barriers to providing the research that public health practice and policy partners say they need

2017· article· en· W2746114660 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rosemary Rushmer, Janet Shucksmith

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProcurementExcellenceUSablePublic relationsBusinessPublic healthActivity-based costingPublic policyPolitical scienceMarketingMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the development of askFuse is used as a case study to illustrate contextual and system barriers to universities providing useful, usable and timely research evidence in response to local practice and policy partners’ stated public health research needs. Entrenched systems (research excellence framework, academic career pathways, procurement processes) proved to be considerable obstacles. Issues discussed in the successful operationalising of askFuse included: reputational risks, uncertainty; working round system barriers; dilemmas in costing the research; and an opportunity to re-think what counts as valuable research, effective public health research methods, and the creation of a new evidence base.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.594
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.059 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & PolicySame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207