Integrated Knowledge Translation and Grant Development: Addressing the Research Practice Gap through Stakeholder-informed Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We describe our stakeholder engagement process for grant application development that occurred as part of our integrated knowledge translation plan and make recommendations for researchers. METHOD: In phase 1, a stakeholder consultation group was developed. In phase 2, surveys regarding knowledge gathering, research agenda, and research collaboration preferences were sent to 333 cross-sectoral youth-serving organizations in Ontario, including family and consumer organizations. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28 stakeholders from six sectors participated in the consultation group and provided input on multiple aspects of the proposal. Through this process, 19 stakeholders adopted formal roles within the project. In phase 2, 206 surveys were received (response rate = 62%). Survey responses supported the grant focus (concurrent youth mental health and substance use problems). Respondents also prioritized project goals and provided specific feedback on research and knowledge translation. Finally, although some stakeholders chose greater involvement, most survey respondents indicated a preference for a moderate level of participation in research rather than full team membership. CONCLUSIONS: Despite short timelines and feasibility challenges, stakeholders can be meaningfully engaged in and contribute to the grant proposal development process. Consideration is needed for the practical challenges that stakeholder organizations face in supporting and participating in research.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
| grok | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
| opus | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.552 | 0.519 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".