MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897655871 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1496361

Defining and evaluating transdisciplinary research: implications for aging and technology

2018· review· en· W2897655871 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsFraser InstituteSimon Fraser UniversityPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransdisciplinarityContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementTranslational researchInclusion (mineral)Engineering ethicsSociologyMedicineComputer scienceSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Transdisciplinary research has the potential to enhance the real-world impact of the field of aging and technology. This is a context-driven and problem-focused approach to knowledge production that involves collaboration across scientific disciplines and academic and nonacademic sectors. To sustain broader implementation of this approach, a scoping review was conducted on the impact of this approach on research processes, outcomes and uptake.Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted of aging, health/medicine, and technology literatures indexed in three electronic data bases (Medline/OVID, EBSCO, ProQuest) from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2015. Search terms included three themes: (1) transdisciplinarity; (2) research outcomes and (3) social change.Results: Twenty articles met the inclusion criteria. We found that a transdisciplinary approach to research enhances integration of diverse knowledge, scientific and extra-scientific outcomes, capacity to engage in translational research and the uptake of research knowledge. We also identified a number of facilitators and barriers to successful implementation of this approach. No articles evaluating transdisciplinary research specifically in the context of aging and technology were found.Conclusions: Adoption of transdisciplinary research in aging and technology may foster greater uptake of technological innovation in the real-world by supporting integration of diverse knowledge and enhancing engagement of experiential and nonacademic stakeholders in the research and development process. However, supporting successful implementation of this approach requires investment of personal and structural resources. More research is needed to better understand the evidence base on the adoption of this approach in aging and technology projects.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTransdisciplinary research is context-driven and problem-focused and involves collaboration between academic and non-academic sectors.A transdisciplinary approach can enhance knowledge integration, scientific productivity and capacity and public involvement in research.Future research is needed to determine the effectiveness of transdisciplinarity for optimizing the development and uptake of assistive technologies.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.299 · 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