Building research capacity in family medicine: evaluation of the Grant Generating Project.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Grant Generating Project (GGP), a program designed to train and assist family medicine researchers to secure funding as part of an overall strategy to increase research capacity in family medicine. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey. POPULATION: First- through fourth-year participants in the GGP program starting from 1995. Participants were faculty members of American and Canadian family medicine departments. OUTCOME MEASURED: We measured cardinal features of primary care quality including first-contact care (accessibility and utilization), longitudinality (strength of affiliation and interpersonal relationship), comprehensiveness (services offered and received), and coordination of care. RESULTS: Most (18 of 23) GGP participants completed the survey. A total of 58 grants/contracts were submitted by respondents, representing approximately US$19.3 million. Currently, 17 (29%) are pending, representing $10.8 million (including training grants). Given the current track record, $4.8 million additional grants funds could be generated. GGP strengths cited by respondents included an effort to enhance family medicine research; personal attention, guidance, motivation, and feedback from GGP faculty and mentors; development of grant-writing skills; encouragement to attend family medicine meetings; ability to meet and learn from peers; mock study section experience; and the ability to teach, mentor, and encourage others as the GGP experience did for them. Major challenges cited were a variable degree of commitment from mentors, lack of a long-term commitment to participants, and difficulty accommodating the research focus and skill level of participants. In general, most respondents regarded the GGP program as well worth the time and effort invested. CONCLUSIONS: One to 2 years after participating in the program, participants achieved a remarkable track record of grant submissions. Moreover, the GGP program has had a substantial impact on participants; many are now teaching and mentoring others in their department. If sustained, the program will greatly increase the research capacity of the discipline of family medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.119 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".