Knowledge translation of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18–64 years and Adults aged 65 years or older: a collaborative movement guideline knowledge translation process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing a step-by-step process that provides practitioners with a blueprint for translating movement guidelines into action stands to optimize the investment in guideline development, improve guideline promotion and uptake, and ultimately enhance population health. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Knowledge-to-Action framework and integrated knowledge translation were operationalized to systematically inform our knowledge translation (KT) efforts for the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18–64 years and Adults aged 65 years or older. In October 2018, the need for a KT Process, operating in tandem with the Guideline Development Process, led to the establishment of a KT team with a specific structure and terms of reference. The KT team collaboratively agreed on decision-making principles prior to selecting target audiences to focus their efforts. We undertook formative research to assess the local context and determinants of guideline dissemination and implementation efforts among target audiences. Plans for the subsequent steps and research are outlined. We highlight recommendations and lessons learned for applying the process in other settings. Novelty We outline a collaborative and systematic process and research program for the knowledge translation of movement guidelines. This paper provides an innovative and replicable blueprint to optimize future movement guideline knowledge translation efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".