MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034468131 · doi:10.22230/src.2020v11n2a345

Identifying Priorities for Communicating a Large Body of Research for Impact

2020· article· en· W3034468131 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alison Palmer, Joanne Telfer, Cheryl Peters, Anne‐Marie Nicol

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsPolitical scienceCarexHumanitiesArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background CAREX (CARcinogen EXposure) Canada’s mandate is to communicate a body of academic research and expertise on Canadians’ exposures to carcinogens, to inform efforts to reduce exposures and ultimately reduce the risk of cancer. With 80 known and suspected carcinogens in its database and over 800 estimates of how and where Canadians are exposed, CAREX’s challenge has been to focus its efforts to achieve impact. Analysis A process model for identifying and prioritizing opportunities for knowledge translation was developed. From 2012-2017 that model was used to identify exposure priorities, select and engage knowledge users with readiness to collaborate, and explore opportunities to apply CAREX’s knowledge and expertise. Conclusion and implications A total of 54 impacts were tracked, including priority setting, cancer prevention research, implementation research, and policy and practice change.RésuméContexte CAREX Canada (CARcinogen EXposure) a pour mandat de communiquer la recherche et l’expertise académiques sur l’exposition des Canadiens aux carcinogènes, de soutenir les efforts pour réduire cette exposition, et en fin de compte de réduire les incidences du cancer. Dans sa base de données, CAREX recense quatre-vingts cancérogènes connus et soupçonnés et plus de huit cents estimations sur comment et où les Canadiens y sont exposés. Son défi principal a été de focaliser ses efforts afin d’avoir un meilleur impact. Analyse Un modèle de processus a été développé pour identifier et prioriser les occasions d’effectuer une application des connaissances. Entre 2012 et 2017, ce modèle a servi à identifier les priorités pour l’exposition aux cancérigènes, à sélectionner et intéresser des utilisateurs des connaissances prêts à collaborer, et à explorer les occasions pour appliquer le savoir et l’expertise de CAREX. Conclusion et implications On a relevé un total de 54 impacts, y compris l’établissement des priorités, la recherche sur la prévention du cancer, la recherche sur la mise en oeuvre, et la modification de politiques et de pratiques.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.221
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0260.020
Open science0.0040.017
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.458
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.134 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207