Canadian research fellowship training programs in digestive sciences: achievements and challenges.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) is committed to fostering the development of future Canadian investigators. Up to 1986, research fellowship support was obtained from the Medical Research Council (MRC) of Canada. Since that time, several peer-reviewed, industry-sponsored, CAG-supported research fellowships and a variety of independently funded awards have augmented this effort. In the same period, peer-reviewed operating grants (OGs) from the MRC and other agencies have been constrained. The aim of this study was to determine the success of CAG, MRC or any other Canadian research fellowships in the development of career investigators in digestive sciences and to identify factors influencing the outcomes of such training. METHODS: MRC records and the minutes of CAG annual meetings were reviewed to identify research fellowship support. Canadian program directors were requested to list research fellows affiliated with their groups between 1986 and 1997. Only fellowships providing at least 1 year of training were included. A 7-page questionnaire detailing biographic characteristics, the site and duration, and specific issues related to the quality of research training was sent to identified trainees. Significant associations between success in achieving an academic appointment or OG support and several variables of training were identified. RESULTS: Eighty-six research fellows were trained. Responses were obtained from 43 of them. The demographic characteristics of the whole group and the respondents were similar. Of the respondents, 81% of trainees obtained academic appointments. Fellowships longer than 1 year were associated with higher rates of academic posting, and MRC-funded fellows had greater success rates of academic appointments. Of eligible trainees 63% have obtained OG support. None of the other variables examined predicted success. Of the trainees responding, 85% valued the fellowship very highly. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of the additional research fellowships has fostered the development of career investigators in digestive sciences. The high success rate of former trainees in obtaining academic appointments and OG support suggests that the fellowship programs are effective and appropriately oriented. The structure of the current programs does not require substantial revision. OG support for new investigators appears now to lag substantially.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».