Disseminating the IKT Guiding Principles: What did we do? Where did we go? What do we do and where do we go next?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Knowledge mobilization, specifically dissemination, and research partnerships are helpful for ensuring research is translated to practice. However, empirical data reporting on the processes and outcomes of a partnership approach to dissemination are limited. Sharing and promoting the Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Guiding Principles for conducting and disseminating spinal cord injury research in partnership provide an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the processes and outcomes of a partnership approach to dissemination. Methods The dissemination process of the IKT Guiding Principles included four iterative phases: 1) planning dissemination, 2) conducting dissemination; 3) evaluating dissemination, and 4) reflecting on dissemination. Dissemination activities and outcomes were tracked using 5 sources: a partnership tracking survey, a partnership curriculum vitae, Google Analytics, team emails, and a citation-forward search. Important outcomes tracked were exposure, engagement, and citations. Exposure and engagement to the IKT Guiding Principles were defined as the number of times and/or locations the IKT Guiding Principles were accessed and/or downloaded. Results The IKT Guiding Principles Partnership planned dissemination of the guiding principles from the beginning of the project. Dissemination activities formally commenced with a variety of approaches including direct emails, social media posts, a webinar, academic and community presentations, journal publications. Within the first 20 months of publication, the guiding principles were viewed 3058 times, accessed in 31 different countries (exposure), downloaded 282 times (engagement), and cited 30 times. Conclusion This project provides an overview of metrics and methodology that can be used to monitor and evaluate the processes and outcomes of an IKT approach to dissemination. Overall, a co-production approach may be helpful for disseminating research findings; however, more research is needed to understand the impact of an IKT approach on the dissemination and implementation of research findings.
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 | 0.192 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".