MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810597755 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.31160

Evaluating the Process and Outcomes of a Knowledge Translation Approach to Supporting Use of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) in Public Health Practice

2018· article· en· W2810597755 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laura C. Rosella, Catherine Bornbaum, Kathy Kornas, Michael Lebenbaum, Leslea Peirson, Randy Fransoo, Carla Loeppky, Charles Gardner, David L. Mowat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Partnership Against CancerManitoba HealthUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge translationPopulationPublic healthObservational studyKnowledge managementAction (physics)PsychologyProcess (computing)Focus groupBusinessMedicineEnvironmental healthNursingComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: To support the use of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) in public health settings, a knowledge brokering (KB) team used and evaluated the Population Health Planning Knowledge-to-Action model. Participants (n = 24) were from four health-related organizations. Data sources included document reviews, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and observational notes. Site-specific data were analyzed and then triangulated across sites using an evaluation matrix. The KB team facilitated DPoRT use through planned and iterative strategies. Outcomes included changes in skill, knowledge, and organizational practices. The Population Health Planning Knowledge-to-Action model and team-based KB strategy supported DPoRT use in public health settings.

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 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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.840
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207