Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER) FINAL REPORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Category 2: Building or Extending Networks (6 Projects) KMb Strategies.All projects exhibited similar KMb efforts: creating new or extending existing networks, developing a need-based or gap assessment, and producing appropriate products and dissemination processes based on the results gathered.New or existing partnerships were used to further develop networks.The projects generated numerous products connected to a KMb plan for networking for a particular purpose.Challenges.The major challenge was time.Innovative approaches to developing products required more time than anticipated and projects also encountered a range of practical challenges concerning time for ethics approvals, participants' workload and schedules, gaining access to stakeholders, and time required to develop trusting partnerships and to move forward to implementation.Successes.The overarching success theme was access and connection to other people.Projects reported the use of learning communities and engaging with stakeholders. Category 3: Strengthening Research Brokering (19 Projects)KMb Strategies.Most projects within this category exhibited similar KMb strategies, they organized steering committees to guide their work and gathered information via a literature review or by collecting information from stakeholders.Once a gap in practice was identified, the projects served as research brokers by collecting and mobilizing relevant knowledge to inform practice.Challenges.Operational challenges encountered included coming to consensus across different partners about what knowledge was to be shared, balancing partners' time and workload to achieve project goals, and difficulties if the participants involved had a lack of project topic knowledge.Successes.Successes involved building lasting networks with different stakeholders for continued knowledge brokering.Success stories generally focused on the effective use of intermediaries to connect research to practice. Category 4: Visiting World Experts (6 Projects)KMb strategies.The KMb plan for these projects included hosting visiting scholars.Projects either established partnerships with recognized networks or forged new networks, including universities and schools.Projects utilized partners' social media and communication processes to mobilize KMb products.Challenges.Maximizing the benefits of short visits was a common challenge.Successes.These projects built on and advanced already established KMb efforts. Collaboration through Partnerships and NetworkingThere were 140 different partners of varying types involved in the projects.Over half (26 of 44) of the projects created new partnerships.All regions of Ontario had some degree of connection to a KNAER network and some networks extended nationally and/or internationally.v Relationship BuildingPIs indicated the importance of developing intentional relationships with individuals or organizations with similar interests and/or to provide intended access.Substantial time and effort needed to be invested to make face-to-face opportunities happen. Network CreationFor PIs who created new networks, having a strategic implementation plan regarding how to build a specific network was essential. Network ExpansionPIs expanding existing networks indicated the importance of developing trusting relationships.Establishing collaborative teams with common goals and engaging in joint conversations was crucial.Recommendation 3: While highly successful overall, there remain recurring themes that require consideration upfront in the future work of a possible "KNAER Phase II" including attention to a clear, agreed-upon vision between members, as well as attention to the various roles and responsibilities of each partner. Identify and Approve Applied Education Research and Knowledge Mobilization Projects in Support of Enhancing Practice Recommendation 4:To learn from the experiences of the KNAER projects to inform future approaches to KMb, applied education research, and improved impact for enhancing practice.To consider, for example: the benefits of using professional learning communities to develop research-to-practice connections, the importance of actionable products such as professional resources for use by educators, and the need for training and guides to KMb for researchers.Recommendation 5: To act on the future opportunities proposed in the external evaluation to: focus on development of quality KMb activities, provide sector-wide training on KMb, and leverage existing knowledge and resources from the KNAER. Ensure Collaboration between Leading Provincial, National, and International Researchers Recommendation 6:Include attention to the provision of guidance and supports for effective partnership working into future models and plans.Recommendation 7: There is a need for provincial support for networking across projects and beyond and developing an overall Ministry-university partnership(s) to function as a "hub" or "knowledge broker" to connect individuals, organizations, and activities around shared priority interests and areas of evidence.Recommendation 10: For the Ontario Ministry of Education (and Government) to engage in and support partnerships to advance an evidence-informed education system. Recommendation 11:Analyze the current status of an evidence-informed system for education in Ontario.Recommendation 12: Clarify the purpose of KNAER Phase II and conceptualize the intended function.Recommendation 13: Develop a specific focus and linked goals. Recommendation 14: Provincial functions for KNAER Phase II include
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 | 0.042 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.306 | 0.187 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".