Knowledge mobilisation in bridging community-practice–academia-policy through meaningful engagement: systematic integrative review protocol focusing on studies conducted on health and wellness among immigrant communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Though the importance of knowledge mobilisation has been established globally in health and wellness research, a certain degree of ambiguity remains regarding the meaning and extent of knowledge mobilisation activities and how they have been implemented. In this study, we aim to explore the different descriptions of knowledge mobilisation and the diverse ways mobilisation activities have been realised by different researchers working for the betterment of health and wellness of immigrant communities in their host countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aimed to conduct an integrative review to organise the available literature describing knowledge mobilisation pertaining to health and wellness in immigrant communities. We will employ a comprehensive search, using appropriate search-terms, to identify relevant literature and will qualitatively synthesise the information toward fulfilling our objectives. Specific methodological and analytical frameworks related to the integrative review process will guide each step of the process. A librarian designed the systematic search of the academic and grey literature from database inception to December 2019. The databases include MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL and SocINDEX. For grey literature, we will conduct searches in AHS Insite, Google, Google Scholar, OAISter and government websites. A two-stage (title-abstract and full-text) screening will be conducted, including single-citation tracking and hand search of reference lists. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. We first plan to disseminate the results of our systematic review protocol through meetings with key stakeholders, followed by appropriate publications and presentations at applicable platforms. We also have opted for an integrated knowledge translation or community-engaged knowledge mobilisation approach where we have engaged with community-based citizen researchers from the inception of our research.
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 | 0.217 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".