Explaining knowledge use among clients of the Program Training & Consultation Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central question this research answered was What factors account for variation in knowledge use following receipt of service from the Ontario Tobacco Strategy 's Program Training and ConruIiation Centre (PTCC)?Its intent was to extend understanding of theoretical constmcts related to knowledge utilisation in the context of health promotion.A review indicated that relaiively little systematic effort has examined how health promoters use research and that existing research had used a limited set of variables to explain health promotion research use.A framework fiom education (Cousins & Leithwood, 1993) provided an opportunity to test an expanded range of variables in public health.The h e w o r k consists of variable domains related to (a) the Source and Information, (b) the Setting for Improvement and (c) Interactive Processes.Study 1 consisted of a stmctured telephone interview of 18 1 heaith unit staff (86% response rate) listed as PTCC clients in the past year.The survey sought respondent perceptions about the intervention using quantitative measures of variables derived fkom the SOURCE AND INFORMATION domain.Principal components anaiysis identified conceptual (CKU e-g., learning) and instrumental (KU e.g., decision-making) uses of knowledge.Hierarchical regression analyses indicated two factors (intervention intensity How can 1 repay the significant withdrawals I've made on the social capital of these various communities?Sticky buns for all. . ....
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".