Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although the basic principles of medical research have not changed much over the past century, the ways that research is conducted has changed significantly, particularly over the past two decades. One aspect that has changed a great deal is the composition of research teams. In the past, researchers were working in isolation or in small groups, while today, multiple partnerships and large groups have become the rule. Furthermore, methods have progressed markedly, high technology is omnipresent and communications have achieved an unprecedented speed. The number of research works published has increased exponentially. This has created a strain for researchers having to balance the requirement for specialization with the need to cross discipline boundaries in research. Mondialization has rapidly reached the medical scene, and research in particular. Collaboration between groups of researchers from different universities, within Canada and from other countries, has allowed fruitful exchanges of expertise, and national and/or international institutions or organizations have facilitated the networking of research groups. Also, efforts are being made to have scientists from different domains work together, and although there may be difficulties in regard to their respective “specialized culture or technical language”, these collaborations may lead to new ways of approaching difficult problems and innovative ways of investigating or treating them. Not only have collaborations between different academic milieux been fruitful but, increasingly, joint university-industry initiatives have flourished. New modes of linking researchers and caregivers have been developed, particularly to help identify specific research targets and to develop ways to translate findings into patient care, adding further dimensions to the research process. It is in this context that the recently formed Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (ICRH), part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, has initiated its activities. The Institute aims to support research into the causes, prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment support systems and palliation for a wide range of conditions affecting the heart, lung, brain, blood and blood vessels. This research will be done in partnership with other organizations, such as the Canadian Lung Association and the Canadian Thoracic Society. However, the nature of this partnership may take different forms, including joint support to the following: investigator-generated research (operating grants) and projects related to targeted ‘priority’ areas of research; regionally based training centres providing an infrastructure and mentorship to support the training of fellows and/or graduate students; fellowships in the respiratory field; multicentre networks working on a common theme (group grants); and interinstitute initiatives. Announcements of various programs have already been made, with more to come, and discussions with provincial lung associations should lead to a definition of the terms of agreement for these joint ICRH-Canadian Lung Association/Canadian Thoracic Society programs. You can check those developments on the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Web site (www.cihr.ca).
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 | 0,049 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,030 |
| Communication savante | 0,025 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,015 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,022 | 0,031 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,006 |
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 ».