Incidence des relations interpersonnelles sur le transfert de connaissances dans la recherche en services de santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le système canadien de soins de santé coûte cher et il a besoin d’être amélioré afin de devenir plus performant. Cette amélioration du système de soins de santé passe par une recherche innovatrice, c’est-à-dire une recherche basée sur la collaboration entre les producteurs et les utilisateurs de cette recherche. Cette collaboration favorise l’utilisation de la recherche.\n\nDe nombreuses études ont démontré qu'un facteur déterminant favorise l'utilisation de la recherche: les bonnes relations interpersonnelles entre chercheurs et utilisateurs à toutes les étapes de la recherche, partant de l’identification des priorités de recherche et de l'élaboration des questions de recherche, jusqu'à la mise en œuvre des résultats.\n\nCette thèse offre des pistes pour comprendre les attitudes et les comportements qui favorisent les bonnes relations interpersonnelles entre chercheurs et utilisateurs, ce qui servira à mettre en place des processus de transfert de connaissances efficaces qui mèneront à l'utilisation de la recherche.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".