MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409174984 · doi:10.1017/cts.2025.54

Perspective integration capability: A valid and reliable measurement instrument for assessing knowledge integration readiness in interdisciplinary collaborations

2025· article· en· W4409174984 on OpenAlexaff
Maritza Salazar Medina, Theresa K. Lant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Knowledge managementComputer scienceKnowledge integrationData scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceDomain knowledge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Work in science, medicine, and engineering increasingly relies on collaborations among diverse experts to solve complex problems. Despite the importance of interprofessional training and practice to enhance collaboration and knowledge integration, there is a lack of a conceptually meaningful, valid, and reliable measure of individual capacity for interdisciplinary knowledge integration. This study contributes a conceptual framework and empirical tool to facilitate both research and practice of interdisciplinary collaborations. Methods: We conduct a three-phase, five-study investigation to develop and validate a measure of individual perspective integration capability (PIC), which assesses individual willingness and ability to integrate knowledge with others during collaborative work. Phase 1 includes item generation and reduction in three studies using different samples of respondents. Phase 2 demonstrates convergent and discriminant validity with conceptually related and unrelated constructs, using a separate sample of respondents. Phase 3 tests criterion-related validity and mediation by examining the multilevel relationships between PIC and key antecedents and outcomes, using data from a unique sample of research scientists in interdisciplinary medical research teams. Results: Across the three phases of our study, the results demonstrate support for the PIC instrument's factor structure, reliability, and validity. We also demonstrated that the PIC construct has important implications for individuals engaged in interdisciplinary collaborations. Conclusions: Having a conceptually meaningful, valid, reliable, and easily administered survey instrument will facilitate further study of interdisciplinary collaboration, and the development and evaluation of integration efforts of teams engaged in convergent and translational initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Translational ScienceSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207