MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402694633 · doi:10.14485/hbpr.11.4.5

A Knowledge Translation Strategy to Promote the Health and Social Development of Students: An Evaluation Study

2024· article· en· W4402694633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Dagenais, Michelle Proulx, Clara Morin, Roula Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Behavior and Policy Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranslation (biology)Knowledge translationPsychologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: In this paper, we evaluate the implementation of a knowledge translation strategy aimed at optimizing the use and deployment of the ÉKIP reference framework within both the education (preschool, primary, secondary) and the health and social services networks of the province of Quebec (Canada) and their partner organizations. Methods: We collected data on Web-based use of the reference framework (ÉKIP Online) and promotional newsletters in spring 2021. We then compared these with other data collected and analyzed in September 2022. We subsequently conducted 19 semi-structured interviews to explore the extent and nature of ÉKIP Online use, identify enabling and inhibiting factors, and extract recommendations for the project’s continuance. Results: The increase in use of ÉKIP Online and its uptake tools suggested that communities had become increasingly interested in and informed about the reference framework. Nevertheless, the qualitative component of the evaluation offered a nuanced perspective on its use and deployment. Conclusion: The evaluation documented a series of levers to ensure the greatest possible reach of the reference framework and its use within the networks. Further efforts are necessary to reach more schools and support use and deployment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueHealth Behavior and Policy ReviewSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207