MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403768022 · doi:10.1002/eet.2128

Taking knowledge exchange to practice: A scoping review of practical case studies to identify enablers of success in environmental management

2024· review· en· W4403768022 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Policy and Governance · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKnowledge managementBusinessProcess managementManagement scienceEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A gap exists in the literature on how to implement theories of knowledge exchange (KE) into practice within an environmental management context. To support the improved practice of KE, we conducted a scoping literature review evaluating 56 empirical case studies globally to identify enabling conditions for implementing effective KE. Identified enabling conditions were organized into a core capacities framework, which highlighted essential elements of effective KE from organizational, individual, financial, material, practical, political, and social capacity dimensions. Results show that major enablers to effective KE relate to practitioners' individual and organizational capacity including the ability of practitioners (often boundary spanners) to establish trust with relevant actors through their interpersonal relationships and possessing sufficient background knowledge and skills to facilitate collaborations across disciplines and sectors. We also identified main challenges to engaging in KE (e.g., insufficient long‐ term funding for projects, lack of interpersonal skills for KE practitioners to build relationships and network, and inadequate background knowledge for practitioners to exchange knowledge in an accessible manner), and the outcomes and impacts that can emerge from effective KE work. We find that practitioners often perform quantitative evaluations that provide instantaneous and measurable impacts for the effectiveness of KE, but do not capture the impact of interpersonal relationships and trust that are best achieved through qualitative approaches. Lastly, the synthesis of enablers, challenges, outcomes, and impacts presented in this paper can be a resource for practitioners to identify what enablers may be missing from their KE strategies and in what capacity the KE work can be strengthened.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.303 · 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