MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118293506 · doi:10.15273/hpj.v5i3.12344

Knowledge Mobilization in Research With Equity- and/or Sovereignty-Deserving Communities: A Bibliometric Analysis Protocol

2025· article· W7118293506 on OpenAlexaff
Samson Tse, Ramy Barhouche, Joy Khalil, Debbie Chaves, Fiona Inglis, Erin Allison, Tina Colaco, Melody E. Morton Ninomiya

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthy Populations Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyRigourBibliometricsProtocol (science)CitationThematic analysisCitation analysisCitizen journalismData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Knowledge mobilization (K*)—a term encompassing activities such as synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and application of knowledge—is discussed and cited across disciplines, particularly in research addressing equity- and/or sovereignty-deserving communities. Despite increasing calls for applied research, significant gaps remain between knowledge generation and its outcomes. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) aims to narrow this gap, especially in contexts marked by historical and systemic exclusion. Objectives and Methods: The objectives of this bibliometric analysis are to examine how K* terminology is applied, cited, and connected across disciplines, geographies, authors, and journals, and to produce accessible visual data that highlights patterns related to equity- and/or sovereignty-deserving communities. Adhering to established bibliometric methods, we will use Covidence to pre-screen records, export relevant records for a search within the Web of Science Core Collection to generate data, and then analyze and visualize citation and authorship trends and keyword occurrences using Excel, VOSviewer, and Gephi. Results and Discussion: The findings will reveal the frequently used K* terms, their citation patterns, and how they cluster across disciplines, geographies, authors, and journals. Network visualizations will highlight influential citations, recurring keywords such as equity and community engagement, and thematic intersections with research involving equity- and/or sovereignty-deserving communities. The bibliometric analysis will contribute critical insights into how K* is framed and interacts with equity- and/or sovereignty-deserving communities within the literature. Conclusion: Our protocol serves as a replicable guide for future bibliometric analyses in this area. By leveraging systematic searching protocols and the rigour of bibliometrics, we can create data visualizations to map influence, reveal hidden connections, and present complex knowledge landscapes in ways that are both analytically robust and accessible to diverse audiences, including equity- and/or sovereignty-deserving communities.

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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.2160.321
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.687
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.039 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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 venueHealthy Populations JournalSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207