The Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research: \nEngaging Communities in Applied Health Research and Evidence-informed Decision Making.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PART 1-Engaging Decision Makers: examine integrated knowledge translation under the Contextualized Health Research Synthesis Program. CHRSP engages health system decision makers with researchers throughout its projects: from the identification of topics to framing the research question, from identifying contextual factors to the dissemination and uptake of the research report. learn how CHRSP has partnered with health system decision makers, lessons learned in this unique engagement practice. collaborate with the CHRSP team to identify opportunities to optimize community engagement in health research. DR STEPHEN BORNSTEIN, DIRECTOR, NLCAHR AND DR. KELLI O’BRIEN, VP LONG TERM CARE AND RUURAL HEALTH, WESTERN HEALTH \nPART 2-Engagement in Context: Age-Friendly Acute Care in NL. learn about the project findings and how the CHRSP team places them into context. What are the factors in NL that might influence the health equity, feasibility or acceptability of age-friendly acute care for seniors? physician partner will discuss reality on the ground for seniors and heath care providers. discuss potential contextualization factors and how they may influence research findings. ROB KEAN, CHRSP RESEARCH OFFICER, NLCAHR, DR. ROGER BUTLER, PHYSICIAN AND RESEARCH TEAM MEMBER \nPART 3-Engaging Communities of Research/Knowledge: discussing a dynamic collaborative initiative- Research Exchange Groups. NLCAHR created these groups as a forum where researchers, students, healthcare decision makers, community groups and citizens can exchange knowledge about topics of mutual interest. Research Exchange Groups have been formed to explore a spectrum of research knowledge, from autism and aging to mental health and eating disorders. Participants will be invited to consult with us about how Research Exchange Groups might develop new initiatives for engaging in knowledge translation, capacity-building, and collaboration. ROCHELLE BAKER, COORDINATOR, COMMUNICATION, PARTNERSHIPS AND RESEARCH EXCHANGE GROUPS, NLCAHR ROSEMARY LESTER, SENIORS’ RESOURCE CENTRE, RESEARCH EXCHANGE GROUP ON AGING
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 | 0.061 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.032 |
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".