MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dissemination and Implementation Science in Portuguese speaking countries – Why should we care about it?

2023· article· en· W4392114564 on OpenAlexaff
Danila Cristina Paquier Sala, Meiry Fernanda Pinto Okuno, Gabriela Buccini, Jane S. Hankins, Alice Barros Câmara, Ana Cláudia Vieira, Ana Lúcia de Moraes Horta, Andrea Liliana Vesga-Varela, Carla Andrea Trapé, Carlos Alberto dos Santos Treichel, Carolina Terra de Moraes Luizaga, Cintia de Freitas Oliveira, Cézar D. Luquine, Daiana Bonfim, Daiane Sousa Melo, Daniel Fatori, Debora Bernardo da Silva, Flávio Dias Silva, Francisco Timbó de Paiva Neto, Girliani Silva de Sousa, Gláubia Rocha Barbosa Relvas, Ilana Eshriqui, Leidy Janeth Erazo Chavez, Letícia Yamawaka de Almeida, Lídia Pereira da Silva Godoi, Lorrayne Belotti, Lucas Hernandes Corrêa, Luciana Cordeiro, Luiz Hespanhol, Luize Fábrega Juskevicius, Maria Clara Padoveze, Mariana Bueno, Marina Martins Siqueira, Maritsa Carla de Bortoli, Marília Cristina Prado Louvison, Marília Mastrocolla de Almeida Cardoso, Natália Becker, Oswaldo Yoshimi Tanaka, Paula Cristina Pereira da Costa, Rafael Aiello Bomfim, Reginaldo Adalberto Luz, Sarah Gimbel, Sónia Dias, Thaíla Corrêa Castral, Thiago da Silva Domingos, Ana A. Baumann

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paulista de Enfermagem · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortuguesePolitical sciencePsychologyMedical educationMedicineLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is Dissemination and Implementation Science? The field of Implementation Science studies how intentional actions promote the incorporation of evidence-based intervention into usual care, while Dissemination Science examines how to intentionally share information about evidence-based intervention. It is important to clarify that scientific research results are understood as effective interventions or innovations (e.g., practices, programs, policies, procedures, products, medications, etc.) that are evidence-based.() To implement and disseminate an intervention in usual care, one of the models of D&I proposes the [...]

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)0.314
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.437
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3140.437
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.028
Scholarly communication0.0290.022
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Paulista de EnfermagemSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207