The Future of Disability Research in Australia: Protocol for a Multiphase Research Agenda–Setting Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: For people with disabilities to live a good life, it is essential that funded research in health and social care addresses their interests, meets their needs, and fills gaps in our understanding of the impact that services, systems, and policies may have on them. Decisions about research funding should be based on an understanding of the research priorities of people with disabilities, their supporters and allies, disability researchers, service providers, and policy makers working in the field. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this protocol is to describe the research design and methods of a large-scale, disability research agenda-setting exercise conducted in 2021 in Australia. METHODS: The research agenda-setting exercise involves 3 integrated phases of work. In the first phase, a previous audit of disability research in Australia is updated to understand previous research and continuing gaps in the research. Building on this, the second phase involves consultation with stakeholders-people with disabilities and their supporters and family members, the disability workforce, and people working within services and connected sectors (eg, aging, employment, education, and housing), academia, and public policy. Data for the second phase will be gathered as follows: a national web-based survey; a consultation process undertaken through the government and nongovernment sector; and targeted consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, children with disabilities and their families, people with cognitive disability, and people with complex communication needs. The third phase involves a web-based survey to develop a research agenda based on the outcomes of all phases. RESULTS: We have started working on 2 parts of the research prioritization exercise. Through the research-mapping exercise we identified 1241 journal articles and book chapters (referred to as research papers) and 225 publicly available reports (referred to as research reports) produced over the 2018-2020 period. Data collection for the national survey has also been completed. We received 973 fully completed responses to the survey. Analysis of these data is currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-method research agenda-setting study will be the first to provide an indication of the areas of health and social research that people across the Australian disability community consider should be prioritized in disability research funding decisions. Project results from all phases will be made publicly available through reports, open-access journal publications, and Easy Read documents. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/31126.
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 | 0,166 | 0,127 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,093 | 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 ».