MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392550652 · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-4583-6

Advancements and Challenges in Implementation Science: 2022

2024· book· en· W4392550652 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers research topics · 2024
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South LondonForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdEconomic and Social Research CouncilAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthVetenskapsrådetKing's Health PartnersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGovernment of the United KingdomKing's College LondonKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsComputer scienceEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are now entering the third decade of the 21st Century, and, especially in the last years, the achievements made by scientists have been exceptional, leading to major advancements in the fast-growing field of health services. “Advancements and Challenges in Implementation Science: 2022”, led by Professor Nick Sevdalis, Specialty Chief Editor of the Implementation Science section, is focused on new insights, novel developments, current challenges, latest discoveries, recent advances and future perspectives in the field of implementation science. The research topic solicits brief, forward-looking contributions that outline recent developments and major accomplishments that have been achieved and that need to occur to move the field forward. Authors are encouraged to identify the greatest challenges in the sub-disciplines and how to address those challenges. The goal of this research topic is to shed light on the progress made over the past decade in implementation science, whilst providing a thorough overview of the field’s future challenges. This article collection will inspire, inform and provide direction to researchers in this area.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.011

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 head0.524
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.039 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers research topicsSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207