MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy: A review of progress and research needs

2024· review· en· W4394590246 on OpenAlexaff
Denis B. Karcher, P Tuohy, Steven J. Cooke, Christopher Cvitanovic

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean & Coastal Management · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersAustralian National University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Knowledge managementCorporate governancePublic relationsPolitical scienceRelevance (law)Equity (law)BusinessGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of oceans and coasts needs to be informed by the best available knowledge. One way to support that is through interactive knowledge exchange (KE). Over the last decade, KE strategies have been shared with the marine research community, however, it is unclear whether this has led to recent (i.e., since 2015) progress. Through a systematic review of 60 recent academic articles applying or evaluating marine science-policy KE we synthesize trends in strategies, reasons for using a specific strategy, enablers, achievements, and evaluation. Most articles located were from North America, routinely included local actors or organizations, and spanned different governance levels. In addition to knowledge co-production and boundary organizations as well-established strategies, research networks and engaged funders coordinating and supporting science-policy KE played an increasing role. However, studies rarely provided reasons for why they adopted a specific KE approach within their given context. Achievements of KE are becoming more broadly understood and, among others, included the generation of new knowledge and impact on management or individuals. Factors that enable such achievements are a key area of progress in the literature. Individual case studies referred to the process level (e.g., practical collaboration, inclusive participation and equity, clear goals, continuity), interpersonal level (e.g., trust building, relationships, regular face-to-face contact), and individual level (e.g., skillsets, understanding, champions, facilitators). The measures to evaluate the effectiveness of KE were predominately qualitative (e.g., relevance of knowledge, use of knowledge in management, individual conceptual impacts, and level of engagement). It is increasingly understood what diversity of impacts to look for and unfold ways for more purposeful evaluation. In conclusion, much progress has been made in recent years, and we identify ten further research needs around the inclusivity, institutionalization, strategy selection, and efficiency of KE approaches to support evidence-informed ocean and coastal management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.091
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean & Coastal ManagementSame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207