The effect of institutional support and relational capital on knowledge mobilization in public administration research
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
Abstract Knowledge mobilization (KMb) takes a programmatic approach to empower and motivate scholars to connect research with policy‐making through disseminating research to knowledge users, acquiring information from practitioners, and responding to the acquired information. The present study aims to investigate the influence of institutional‐level factors on researchers' KMb activities. One hundred fifty‐five researchers in the field of public administration across China participated in an online survey study. The participants reported their KMb activities, perceived institutional support, and relational capital. The results demonstrate that both the strength of institutional support and relational capital are positively associated with researchers' KMb activities. Moreover, the effect of institutional support tends to be stronger when an institution has more relational capital. The study highlights that research institutions should take programmatic approaches to empower their researchers to be actively involved in the knowledge co‐production process and make a systematic effort at the institutional level to build a well‐developed collaborative network.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it