Building a Logic Model to Foster Engagement and Learning Using the Case of a Province-Wide Multispecies Antimicrobial Use Monitoring System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successfully designing and implementing a program is complex; it requires a reflexive balance between the available resources and the priorities of various stakeholders, both of which change over time. Logic models are theory-based evaluation approaches used to identify and address key challenges of a program. This article describes the process of building a logic model on advanced theories in complexity studies. The models aim to support a province-wide multispecies monitoring system of antimicrobial use (AMU), designed in collaboration with the animal health sector in Quebec (Canada). Based on a rigorous theoretical foundation, the logic model is built in three steps: (1) mapping, a narrative review of literature on similar programs in other jurisdictions; (2) framing, iterative consultations with project members to elaborate the logic model; (3) shaping, hypotheses based on the logic model. The model emerges from the reflexive balancing of current scientific knowledge and empirical insights to gather relevant information about stakeholders from interdisciplinary experts that led a 3-year consensus-building process within the community. Recognizing the challenge of unpacking theories for practical use, we illustrate how the process of an “open” logic model building could enable governance coordination in complex processes. Logic models are useful for evaluating public, private, and academic partnerships in One Health programs that characterize an adaptive governance process.
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 | 0.045 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".