Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge translationthe ubiquity of this term extends to policy, scholarship, and practice, internationally.This ubiquity is particularly the case in healthcare.Consider the efforts of several international bodies to promote knowledge translationthese bodies include the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2015, n.d.), the National Health and Medical Research Council (n.d.) in Australia, and the National Health Service in the United Kingdom (Stansfield & South, 2018).Thus, this special issue on the sociological aspects of knowledge translation is important, timely, and particularly relevant to the sociology of health, illness, and medicine.This is for four key reasons.First, given different (if not heightened) societal expectations, many government bodies and international organisations now expect different knowledges to be represented in research about health(care).Second, the processes through which different knowledges coalesce demonstrate the myriad interactions between society and health.Third, knowledge translation requires sociologically informed scholarship that accounts for how social interactions and political processes influence health, illness, and medicine.And fourth, First Nations Peoples have emphasised that knowledge translation should be grounded in respect for diverse knowledges and that it should operate relationally rather than uni-directionally.Furthermore, making knowledge translation foundational to research design and communication provides an opportunity to demonstrate respect for First Nations People's enduring connections to Country, intergenerational responsibilities, and knowledge of communities (Williams & Marlin, 2022).This special issue represents a complement of formative and thought-provoking articles that collectively advance the sociological aspects of knowledge translation.Reflecting a sociology of knowledge translation (Kitto et al., 2012), the authors of each contribution recognise knowledge translation as the processes through which different knowledge coalesce to inform how we feel, think, and behave.These knowledges include (but are not limited to) evidence born from research, lived experiences, cultural values, and spiritual awareness.The articles that collectively represent this special issue offer several astute contributions.For instance, they demonstrate some of the many forms of knowledge translation.They reveal how knowledge translation can helpfully problematise historical and contemporary social issues.They highlight the methodologies and research methods that can helpfully advance the scholarship of knowledge translation.They verify the importance of collaboration in approaches to knowledge translation.And they establish how knowledge translation research can prompt and sustain change.For instance, Heinsch and colleagues (2023) consider the 'dense and intricate relationships, values, politics, and interests that determine whose knowledge counts, who gets to speak, who is spoken for, and with what consequences, in the translation and implementation of scientific knowledge'.They problematise the assumption that there is one objective science and argue that implementation science has a key role in ensuring that the traditional dominance of particular voices and institutional structures is critiqued.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".