870 Contextualised knowledge synthesis for local stakeholders in ohs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Effective decision-making in occupational health and safety (OHS) requires having up-to-date evidence on what works from the best available research. However, the research literature does not typically take into account how implementation may be constrained by the demographic, economic or resource context of a jurisdiction/region that is considering action. Evidence-informed practices and policies need to be made based not only on an understanding of ‘what works’, but also on an understanding of ‘what will work here’. Our objective was to develop and test an innovative methodology for synthesising and contextualising current scientific knowledge in occupational health and safety. Methods The teams combined methods used by the ‘Contextualised Health Research Synthesis Program’ (CHRSP) at the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research (NLCAHR) with techniques for systematic reviewing and reporting pioneered by the Systematic Review Program at IWH. In our pilot testing we collected data about important contextual factors from key stakeholders through interviews or focus groups. Result The method we developed describes a variety of synthesis methods that can be used by researchers and stakeholders for evidence-based decision-making. In addition, we describe the process of gathering contextual information from key stakeholders. In one example related to depression in the workplace, we found that contextual factors of geography, industry/workplace, safey culture were important for stakeholders to consider in implementing evidence-based interventions. Discussion The project resulted in the creation of Evidence in Context Occupational Health and Safety Operational Handbook and an updated systematic review Managing Depression in the Workplace that was contextualised for the province of Manitoba (http://www.iwh.on.ca/systematic-reviews). The methodology has been transferred to end users in three Canadian provinces to date, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario and Manitoba. The handbook is a practical and relatively inexpensive way for OHS stakeholders to synthesise and contextualise evidence for decision making.
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 | 0.222 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".