Knowledge Translation Advancement at a Childhood Disability Research Centre: Report on a Five-Year Strategic Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knowledge translation (KT) can be challenging to do effectively. Capturing the progress of KT activities and their impact is critical, but few resources exist for research organizations to systematically evaluate these. A status update was completed to understand the progress of KT at a childhood disability research centre five years after a KT strategic plan was developed.Analysis: A survey was completed by researchers, trainees, and staff to report on their KT activities, rate the importance of six priority areas, and rate their satisfaction.Conclusion and implications: This article highlights examples of KT activities and provides recommendations for KT advancement in childhood disability research organizations. Contexte : L’application des connaissances (AC) peut être difficile de faire effectivement. L’évaluation du progrès et de l’impact des activités d’AC est essentielle, mais il existe peu de ressources qui peuvent soutenir les organisations de recherche souhaitant faire une évaluation systématique. Un rapport de situation a été complété pour mieux comprendre comment l’AC a été fait dans un centre de recherche pour les enfants en situation de handicap, cinq ans après qu’une stratégie d’AC ait été développée.Analyse : Un sondage a été rempli par les chercheurs, les étudiants, et le personnel au centre de recherche pour indiquer les activités d’AC réalisées et pour évaluer l’importance de six domaines prioritaires et leur satisfaction.Conclusion et implications : Cet article souligne des exemples d’activités d’AC et fourni des recommandations pour l’avancement de l’AC dans les organisations de recherche en réadaptation pédiatrique.
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 | 0.030 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".