Amplifying adolescent and emerging adult voices: Development of a pediatric-to-adult transition research advisory council
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescents and emerging adults (AEA) with chronic health conditions may face numerous challenges when undergoing the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Despite the need for engagement with AEA in health research, little is known about how researchers operationalize this engagement. In an effort to enhance transparency in the practices of patient engagement, this commentary details the process of developing a pediatric-adult transition-specific youth advisory council in Alberta: the Transition Research Advisory Council (TRAC). Objectives: We provide an overview of AEA engagement in health research and detail TRAC's recruitment and onboarding strategies. Moreover, TRAC members provided reflections on their motivations and experiences during the onboarding process. Key recommendations: This commentary provides key recommendations for AEA council development, emphasizing equity, diversity, and inclusion principles, optimizing compensation plans, adopting an iterative engagement approach, fostering capacity-building and mentorship, and promoting empowerment in decision-making.
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 | 0.177 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".