Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2019: where the rubber meets the road: the intersection of research, policy, and practice - part 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Committee membership and abstract review proceduresThe program committee comprised 19 participants. Committee members were selected to ensure representation from multiple viewpoints. Members were from four different countries, various career levels, and represented researchers, intermediaries, practitioners, and policy makers.The abstract review committee comprised 39 participants and, like the program committee, was selected to ensure diverse representation and ensure that submitted abstracts would be reviewed by those with similar roles within implementation science. Each abstract was independently reviewed and scored by two committee members. Scores were averaged across reviewers unless the scores were substantially discrepant, in which case a third reviewer provided additional perspective to determine the abstract score. The abstract review criteria consisted of six components, including alignment with the conference theme, the inclusion of partnerships, background, methods or conceptual fit (if not a research study), findings or results, and implementation focus. Ultimately, the inclusion of partnerships proved difficult to score, so this component was not incorporated in final scores. Raters were given the opportunity to provide additional comments or indicate if the abstract score was not reflective of the overall merit of the proposal. A specified score cutoff was used based upon the number of available breakout rooms. Abstracts with scores at or above this number were provisionally accepted. A separate cutoff was used to determine poster acceptances. Paper presentations were then examined to ensure representation from people of color, women, international teams, and to confirm a balance of research, practice, and policy. Modest modifications to the program were then made. The SIRC 2019 conference received 354 individual submissions, more than doubling the number of submissions received in 2017 for the previous conference and five times more than the inaugural conference in 2011. Seventy-three presentations were accepted as plenaries or breakout symposia. An additional 129 posters were accepted.Spearheaded by the awards committee, SIRC developed new awards in addition to two standing conference awards (Student, New Investigator). Three new conference awards were developed to acknowledge presentations that highlighted the conference theme of science-practice integration, as well as the work of implementation practice. The SIRC Student Award was presented to Heather L. Bullock, for the presentation she led with colleagues John N. Lavis, Michael G. Wilson, Gillian Mulvale, and Ashleigh Miatello. The SIRC New Investigator Award was presented to Emily Becker-Haimes, for the presentation she led with colleagues Jessica Fishman, Torrey Creed, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Danielle Centeno, and David Mandell. The SIRC Conference Theme Award for a Symposium was presented to Chair: Briana S. Last, Discussant: Gregory Aarons, and co-authors/presenters: Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Rinad S. Beidas, Andrew Quanbeck, Nathaniel Williams, Rebecca Stewart, David S. Mandell, Heather Nuske, and Emily Becker-Haimes. The SIRC Conference Theme Award for an Oral Presentation was presented to Brittany Cooper, Adam Darnell, Angie Funaiole, Kevin Haggerty, and Laura Hill. The SIRC Implementation Practice Award was presented to Robert Franks and Jonathan Scaccia. In addition to the conference awards, we announced the inaugural SIRC Mission Award to acknowledge a team that has made outstanding collaborative contributions to implementation science and practice. The 2019 awardee was Penn Center for Mental Health & Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health for their work implementing evidence-based practices in Philadelphia behavioral health care systems.
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 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 | 0.057 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads 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".