MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991194815 · doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0485-3

Collaborative health research partnerships: a survey of researcher and knowledge-user attitudes and perceptions

2019· article· en· W2991194815 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

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsKnowledge translationGeneral partnershipKnowledge managementHealth services researchContext (archaeology)Public relationsKnowledge sharingResource (disambiguation)SustainabilityDescriptive statisticsMedical educationPsychologyBusinessHealth carePolitical scienceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Integrated knowledge translation describes the process of partnered research between different stakeholders with the goal of producing research that ultimately achieves a greater impact when put into practice. A better understanding of research partnerships and integrated knowledge translation has implications for future partnerships and collaborative initiatives in practice. Our research describes and expands upon previous work done to identify barriers and attitudes toward collaboration in the context of research funding opportunities that required researcher–knowledge-user partnerships. Methods A survey was sent out to researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and knowledge-users who worked collaboratively on their research projects. There were two mirror versions of the survey, one for researchers and one for knowledge-users. Descriptive statistics, χ 2 analysis and Mann–Whitney U analysis were used to understand the processes, barriers, perceived impact and sustainability of the partnerships. Results The results revealed that, although there were differences in the roles of researchers and knowledge-users, both groups felt very positive towards their partnerships. Some of the barriers identified as inhibiting effective partnerships were resource constraints (funding/time) and differences in contribution and involvement amongst team members. Despite these barriers, both researchers and knowledge-users felt that the partnership was not only sustainable, but also helped create an impact. Conclusions Our results provide useful information for funding agencies launching opportunities requiring or encouraging collaborative research projects between researchers and knowledge-users.

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.156
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1560.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.942
GPT teacher head0.790
Teacher spread0.152 · 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