Notice bibliographique
Résumé
linician-scientists play a pivotal role in the gap between biomedical research and clinical practice, formulating important patient-focused research questions and then translating novel findings back to the clinic.There has been increasing documentation and dialogue over the last three decades around the decline in the number of clinician-scientists as well as a shift of focus, for those still actively engaged, away from patient-based investigation. 1 One can appreciate the growing concern of stagnation in an exclusively technical expertise, particularly in surgical specialties, without the constant reconstruction afforded by the development and implementation of novel clinical and basic science knowledge.Although postulated explanations for the decline of the clinician-scientist are multiple and varied, most have revolved around issues of training/mentorship, time and financial disincentives.Many of these perceived barriers seem to start early with several published reports documenting the ambivalent attitude towards the value of biomedical research in both medical school and residency training. 2owever, many initiatives in Canada may have started to address this disinclination towards research endeavors by practicing physicians.Some of these include increasing early exposure to research at the medical school level, initiating medical scientist training programs, fostering research in sub-specialty fellowships and developing essential Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and other non-for-profit clinician-scientist awards.Mirroring some optimistic reports from the United States, Lander and colleagues recently reported a study suggesting that Canadian clinician-scientists are awarded an increasing proportion of CIHR research grants and salary awards. 3Although this study paints a fairly optimistic picture, the barriers to most of our newly minted surgicalscientists are still significant with, at best, ad hoc university resources to address issues of protected time from clinical responsibilities and salary support without well-defined, coordinated national policies or programs.The Canadian Urological Association Scholarship Fund (CUASF) was established in 1973 as a means of supporting promising Canadian urologic researchers and therefore to facilitate Canadian urology research productivity.This early career award plays a vital role within our specialty, enabling young clinical-scientists get their foot in the door with respect to peer-reviewed support and financial backing at a critical point in their careers.Over the last 28 years, the CUASF has supported more than 91 academic urologists, as well as many community-based and international physicians, with a commitment to advancing biomedical research in urology.Reviewing this month's CUAJ, it is notable there is at least one previous CUASF scholarship recipient listed as an author in every article.With an increasing impact factor (most recently 1.72), CUAJ is proud to contribute to the mission of the urological research community in Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,039 | 0,084 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,043 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,027 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».