MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382502880 · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01733-8

Capacity development for knowledge mobilization: a scoping review of the concepts and practices

2023· review· en· W4382502880 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Golhasany, Blane Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsIncentiveCapacity buildingThematic analysisGrey literaturePsychological interventionProcess (computing)Knowledge managementPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceQualitative researchMEDLINESocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a growing emphasis worldwide on the use of knowledge mobilization (KMb) to improve policies and practices with the latest research evidence. This emphasis calls upon knowledge producers (e.g., university researchers) to produce more relevant evidence, and knowledge users (e.g., practitioners) to access and apply evidence. However, doing KMb can be challenging for these groups without effective support and training. Therefore, individuals and organizations are undertaking capacity development interventions to facilitate the KMb process with more effective support structures, skills, and incentives. Despite its recognized importance, theoretical evidence and practical guidance on capacity development for KMb are scattered across disciplines and practices. To address this, we conducted a scoping review study to review the current practices and concepts and identify significant gaps. One-thousand six-hundred thirty records were gathered, and 105 peer-reviewed and gray literature documents from 2010 to 2020 were reviewed. Two reviewers worked independently in screening the records, and one researcher analyzed the retained documents. The analysis reveals that capacity development for KMb is a multidimensional and multiscalar concept and practice with a diverse range of initiators, initiatives, and beneficiaries. This study also reports on three thematic areas of significance emerging from the literature, namely: (a) individuals’ and organizations’ challenges in doing and supporting KMb, (b) the capacities and supports deemed needed for effective KMb, and (c) the strategies being used for delivering capacity development. Furthermore, this study identifies evidence gaps related to the process aspects of capacity development for KMb (i.e., planning), capacity development initiatives being undertaken in developing country contexts, and results from more formal evaluations of KMb capacity-building effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.208
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.208
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0660.067
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.734
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207