MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role and contribution of an intermediary organisation in the implementation of an interactive knowledge transfer model

2018· article· en· W2785417718 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQHEC MontréalÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthusiasmCredibilityKnowledge transferKnowledge managementLegitimacyIntermediationIntermediaryBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceMarketingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite enthusiasm for the use of intermediation as a knowledge transfer strategy, there is little research documenting the conditions for its success. This article addresses the role of the intermediary in a collaborative research project. The focus is on how the intermediary facilitates the implementation of an interactive knowledge transfer model. Using a case study as part of a research strategy, we demonstrate that the success of a collaborative research project rests on the credibility and legitimacy of the intermediary, as well as its ability to encourage the involvement of all stakeholders. In fact, the collaborative leadership demonstrated by the intermediary helped to reconcile the various motivations of the project’s stakeholders as well as their views of the project’s usefulness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.381 · 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