Correcting the record on NCRG‐funded research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are writing to respond to an editorial in Addiction [1] that made reference to the National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG) and its research grants program.The editorial is misleading, as it provides a mischaracterization of our program.We are responding to provide a realistic picture of NCRG.When discussing NCRG-funded publications in their essay, Babor & Miller state that 'fewer than half (48%) cited funding from the NCRG in their Acknowledgement section or in a footnote of the paper' ([1], p. 341).We were surprised at this low rate of acknowledgement.Consequently, the NCRG staff contacted Dr Babor, who provided a list of the 30 papers included in his study as well as the 173 papers from which the sample of 30 was drawn.We examined the 167 papers from Babor & Miller's population that were immediately available to us and found that 72% of papers acknowledged that funding was provided by NCRG or the correct name of the organization at the time of paper publication.Also, in the past 5 years more than 98% of NCRG-funded papers have been acknowledged correctly.The 48% acknowledgement rate observed by Babor & Miller in their sample missed one out of every three acknowledgements that were available in the population.We suspect that Babor & Miller's rate was inaccurate for two main reasons. 1 None of the 30 papers in the sample was selected from the most recent 4 years (2009-12) of publications.According to our calculations, the probability of selecting 30 studies randomly from a population of 173 without selecting any of the most recent 51 papers is approximately 0.0000083, or approximately one in 120 000. 2 The authors did not count a paper that acknowledged a previous name used by the NCRG as acknowledging the NCRG (Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders was the name of NCRG's research function when based at the Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance).We have included our complete materials supporting the above points for public inspection in the 'Supporting information' section of the Journal's website.The claim that 'fewer than half ' of NCRG-funded papers were acknowledged is not accurate.The actual rate for the history of the organization is more than 70% and more than 98% in the last 5 years.Correcting this misleading claim is important to NCRG, the Scientific Advisory Board and NCRG grantees.The claim leads readers to think mistakenly that NCRG is exerting influence on the science it funds, and that NCRG awardees do not want to divulge the source of funding for fear that their science will not be published.This could not be further from the truth.
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 | 0,144 | 0,635 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,030 | 0,036 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,032 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,023 | 0,040 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,024 |
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 ».