MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890417256 · doi:10.1093/tbm/iby088

Identifying “real-world” initiatives for knowledge translation tools: a case study of community-based physical activity programs for persons with physical disability in Canada

2018· review· en· W2890417256 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Behavioral Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGrey literatureKnowledge translationSystematic reviewIdentification (biology)Computer scienceMEDLINEWorld Wide WebData scienceKnowledge managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Real-world" initiatives represent an important source of information for evidence-based practice; however, accessing information about initiatives is often challenging. Casebooks are an innovative knowledge translation (KT) tool for researchers, practitioners, and end-users to address "research-to-implementation gaps" through sharing "real-world" experiences. Several casebooks have been published; yet, they remain inconsistent in their methodological approach for identifying "real-world" initiatives. The purpose of this project is to describe and apply systematic scoping study methods for the identification of "real-world" initiatives relevant for the development of KT tools. Specifically, systematic scoping study methods were developed to identify community-based physical activity (PA) programs for persons with physical disabilities across Canada. To identify PA programs, a search strategy was developed and included five distinct search approaches: (i) peer-reviewed literature databases, (ii) grey literature databases, (iii) customized Google search engines, (iv) targeted websites, and (v) consultation with content experts. Title screening and hand searching identified 478 potentially relevant PA programs. Full record review identified 72 PA programs that met KT tool criteria. The most comprehensive search approach was targeted websites, which identified 25 (35%) unique PA programs, followed by content experts (n = 12; 17%). Only four (5.6%) unique PA programs were identified via custom Google searching. No PA programs were uniquely identified through peer- or grey literature database searches. This study describes and applies a systematic scoping study methodology that serves as a basis for identifying and selecting "real-world" initiatives that are central to the development of evidence-based KT tools.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.886
GPT teacher head0.715
Teacher spread0.172 · 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