MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408088061 · doi:10.1186/s41018-025-00166-z

Transmission in interprofessional humanitarian teamwork: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4408088061 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Humanitarian Action · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkTransmission (telecommunications)Human rightsInternational relationsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePoliticsTelecommunicationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context Since the end of the 1990s, the humanitarian sector lives a process of professionalization which has created some challenges for organizations and workers. These changes, which aim to standardize and harmonize practices, have also added issues of worker retention, creation of intercultural and interprofessional teamwork, skills development, health, and maintaining expertise in the fields. Aim Identify the mechanisms of knowledge transmission within humanitarian intervention collectives in a professionalization context. Method The design follows the five-step scoping analysis method proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005). Results The study examines dynamics within humanitarian work groups, focusing on relations between international and national workers, professional segmentation, and collective resilience. It also explores essential knowledge in humanitarian work (contextual, technical, collaborative, metacognitive, and managerial) and the main modes of knowledge transmission: reflective practices, on-the-job transmission, and training. Understanding these interactions and transmissions optimizes effectiveness and skill development in humanitarian contexts. Discussion/conclusion This article discusses professionalization through the rationalization of the humanitarian sector. There is a lack of scientific interest in knowledge transmission through work groups, with a focus on training programme evaluation. Existing dynamics on the ground is harder to control, hindering the evaluation of investment effectiveness. This trend is accompanied by a scarcity of field studies. In addition, there is a need for collective adaptation to respond to unusual situations. However, professionalization, subject to the constraints of donors, can create difficulties for non-governmental organizations (NGO) to establish conditions conducive to resilience or innovation. Our findings call on policy-makers to support adaptable frameworks that improve knowledge sharing and team dynamics in humanitarian response.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.444 · 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