Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is growing recognition among health researchers and funders that the wider benefits of research such as economic, social and health impacts ought to be assessed and valued alongside academic outputs such as peer-reviewed papers. Research translation needs to increase and the pathways to impact ought to be more transparent. These processes are particularly pertinent to the Indigenous health sector given continued concerns that Indigenous communities are over-researched with little corresponding improvement in health outcomes. This paper describes the research protocol of a mixed methods study to apply FAIT (Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research) to the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement (CRE-IQI). FAIT will be applied to five selected CRE-IQI Flagship projects to encourage research translation and assess the wider impact of that research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase I will develop a modified programme logic model for each Flagship project including identifying process, output and impact metrics so progress can be monitored. A scoping review will inform potential benefits. In phase II, programme logic models will be updated to account for changes in the research pathways over time. Audit and feedback will be used to encourage research translation and collect evidence of achievement of any process, output and interim impacts. In phase III, three proven methodologies for measuring research impact-Payback, economic assessment and narratives-will be applied. Data on the application of FAIT will be collected and analysed to inform and improve FAIT's performance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is funded by a nationally competitive grant (ID 1078927) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Newcastle's Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: H-2017-0026). The results from the study will be presented in several peer-reviewed publications, through conference presentations and via social media.
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 | 0.575 | 0.528 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.013 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".