MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907922368 · doi:10.1017/s026646231800315x

PD50 Helping Innovators Navigate Policy And Regulatory Processes

2018· article· en· W2907922368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maggie MacNeil, Melissa Koch, Don Juzwishin, Paul Stole

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProcess (computing)Agency (philosophy)Health technologyKnowledge managementWork (physics)MarketingComputer scienceHealth careEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: As part of a national aging and technology network, AGE-WELL, one work group aims to promote the understanding of potential policy and regulatory hurdles among innovators and decision-makers. This study describes the development of resources to help innovators to navigate policy and regulatory systems to have their technologies adopted. Methods: A policy primer was created that highlights considerations for innovators during the innovation process (from development to implementation). The content of the policy primer was developed by identifying resources through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Grey Matters search tool, and in consultation with legal and regulatory consultants. By surveying AGE-WELL technology-developing projects (n=15) we characterized the technologies being developed within the network. Survey questions included: intended end-user/purchaser of the technology and past/anticipated facilitators/barriers in their innovation process. The policy primer and survey data were combined to create tailored innovation maps with considerations for each technology being developed within the network. These materials were used to develop a beta website where users can receive information relevant to various innovation stages, as it pertains to their technology. We gained feedback about our materials via surveys and interviews with AGE-WELL technology developers. Results: The tailored innovation maps and website were seen as helpful resources for understanding policy and regulatory processes required for technology adoption. Technology developers expressed interest in gaining further access to these resources. Innovators desired additional resources about demonstrating value and measuring technology effectiveness. Conclusions: Resources were developed to help guide technology innovators through policy and regulatory processes; preliminary feedback suggests these were valued by innovators. Next steps include refining the website and releasing these resources to innovators beyond the AGE-WELL Network.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.016

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.354 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207