Podcasting as a Dissemination Method for a Researcher-Practitioner Partnership
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) present opportunities to conduct studies that support evidence-based decision-making for participating school divisions (Coburn, Penuel, & Geil, 2013). Doing this work effectively requires ongoing input from key stakeholders, attention to the local impact of the research, and targeted dissemination to audiences who can benefit from the findings (Tseng, 2012). Research dissemination methods typically include written reports, but constantly evolving media platforms show promise for sharing findings in engaging and innovative ways (Voithofer, 2005). This paper discusses the development and apparent impact of a podcast for a metropolitan RPP to disseminate research findings and other information pertinent to the priorities of partnering school divisions, with implications for broader conversations about exploring issues in public, PK-12 education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it