From research to action : exploring knowledge translation with front-line youth workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how research-with-practice knowledge translation (KT) partnerships strengthen the practice of front-line youth workers (FLYWs) through examining the needs of knowledge users. Using an action research engagement and community-based approach, I engaged FLYWs working in the area of substance use to consider their needs in order to explore how KT partnerships with the At-Risk Youth Study in Vancouver, British Columbia, could strengthen FLYW practices. The results of this study identified the personal and professional benefits, value, and needs for KT with FLYWs. This study revealed complimentary approaches of relational and linear KT process with FLYWs are needed for the successful and ongoing uptake of research into practice. Moreover, the research identified the use of peer-mentorship, the framing of KT processes to match the knowledge needs and contexts of workers, and implementation of systems-wide support for KT partnerships between research and practice as opportunities for KT moving forward.
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 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 | 0.136 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".