1675d Knowledge transfer and exchange in work and health: reaching workplace audiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Workplace injury and illness can be burdensome for individual workers, workplaces, medical systems, insurance systems and society as a whole. The notion of research to practice is important in work and health research. Konwledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is the practice of generation synthesis and dissemination of research. The objective of this presentation is to synthesise the literature describing KTE activities relevant to workplace health and safety programs and interventions. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was completed. Search strategies developed using terms for knowledge transfer and occupational health and safety were run in six electronic databases. (Medline, Embase, Eric, Social sciences, Web of Science, and Business Source Premier). References of relevant documents and hand-searching complimented the search. Documents that described a KTE approach for workplaces were reviewed. KTE approach data were extracted and synthesised according to a framework by Lavis (2003) (What, To whom, By Whom, How, and With what effect) as well as conceptual guidance. Results Literature searchers revealed 34 documents that described 23 different KTE approaches designed to reach workplaces. The KTE approaches addressed workplace and intermediary audiences. KTE methods and outcomes varied greatly according to the context. However, there were common elements including targeting workers as a key audience involving researchers in dissemination and using multi-dissemination methods. Dissemination method consistently included direct interaction but also often featured printed materials. Many KTE approaches were guided by conceptual frameworks. However, no single conceptual framework was predominant. Conclusion Common elements related to audience, activities and impact were found in the literature that can help to guide future KTE approaches. Including workers as an audience and researchers as disseminators in a multi-faceted approach along with in-person meetings and printed material are important aspects of KTE for work and health. Conceptual guidance was content dependent.
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 | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".