MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2305696576

Measuring Interactions among Research Grant Recipients through Social Network Analysis: Insights into Evaluating and Improving Research Collaborations

2015· article· en· W2305696576 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Research Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMental Health and Patient Involvement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMental healthPublic relationsMedical educationSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IntroductionThis project aimed to assess how a major collaborative research grant initiative affected interactions among grant recipients. The Collaborative Research Grant Initiative: Mental Wellness in Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (CRGI) was funded by a grant awarded by the Alberta Minister of Human Services to Alberta Health Services-Addiction & Mental Health. The CRGI had two main goals. First, it funded both academic and practitioner-driven research designed to assist individuals living with a mental illness and disabilities to maximize their independence in the community. In addition, the CRGI was meant to increase awareness of Alberta-based research, and foster collaboration and knowledge exchange, among policy makers, researchers, and community agencies. Developing research collaborations across multiple organizations, disciplines, and locations is a complex challenge and requires significant support (Craven & Bland, 2006). Researchers have argued that we must demonstrate effective knowledge exchange practices in order to better understand what forms of support are effective under real world conditions (Norman & Huerta, 2006).The CRGI steering committee agreed that a first step toward enhancing collaboration within Alberta was to increase awareness among practitioners and researchers in the mental health field. Several information sessions and knowledge exchange events were held to support potential research grant applicants through the CRGI application process, to encourage collaboration, and to disseminate research results. Activities important to the Ministry included capacity building within community agencies funded by the Ministry; capacity building within the Ministry itself; and multi-sectoral collaboration. The CRGI steering committee also decided to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshops using social network analysis. This paper focuses on the social network analysis results, based on data collected from 26 CRGI participants who were surveyed. The project aimed to assess effects of the CRGI on collaboration between grant recipients and their knowledge of one another's work. Therefore we also aimed to illustrate which components of the CRGI were affective in achieving the Ministry's goals. The survey asked grant recipients for demographic information, through which CRGI activities they had met, and about their collaborative activities with one another before and after winning a CRGI grant and engaging in related events. We include information regarding support activities below and further details regarding the grants, projects awarded funding, and the activities that were undertaken to support their collaboration are available at the Alberta Addiction & Mental Health Research Partnership Program website (http://www.mentalhealthresearch.ca).Social Network AnalysisSocial network analysis (SNA) is the study of the structure of relations between actors, people, or organizations who have the capacity to take action (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Scott, 2000). Key SNA principles include: actors are interdependent; resources such as information can be transferred between actors via the nature of their relationships; the form that relationships take between actors can limit or enable the capacity for individual action and; models of networks- their structure-are considered as regularly occurring patterns of relationships between actors within a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In SNA, structure is often illustrated using sociograms or graphs where points (typically actors) are connected by lines (relations) (Scott, 2000). In other words, a sociogram is a graph that represents the people within a social structure and their connections to their peers. These graphs can be effective in visualizing what a network looks like by allowing relations to become visually observable in situations where the observation is typically theoretical or ephemeral.Social network analysis is a useful means to examine interdisciplinary collaboration (Stokols et ah, 2003; Godley, Barron, & Sharma, 2011; Godley, Sharkey, & Weiss, 2013). …

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,055
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,380
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0550,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,798
Tête enseignante GPT0,637
Écart entre enseignants0,160 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle