Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le domaine de la sante, la prise de decision, basee sur les donnees probantes, constitue les assises d'un systeme de sante qui se veut de qualite, efficace, securitaire et centre sur les besoins des patients. De par leur position dans le reseau de la sante, les courtiers de connaissances peuvent jouer un role primordial dans le renouvellement de connaissances de recherche et de pratique.En effet, de nombreux auteurs soulignent le role strategique des courtiers de connaissances qu'ils considerent comme de veritables innovateurs capables d'identifier, d'interpreter, de synthetiser et de disseminer les connaissances pertinentes dans leur milieu. Or, malgre l'existence de plusieurs etudes soulignant le role de ces acteurs dans le renouvellement des connaissances et l'innovation, peu d'entres elles, ont examine concretement comment les courtiers absorbent les connaissances auxquelles ils sont regulierement exposes. Ainsi, l'objectif de cette recherche est d'identifier et d'analyser les determinants de la capacite d'absorption des courtiers de connaissances œuvrant dans les organisations de sante au Canada.
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 | 0.021 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".