Needs, gaps and opportunities for infectious disease research in British Columbia: a perspective from population and public health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A review of infectious disease research activity and capacity was performed in British Columbia and linked to a process for identifying needs, gaps and opportunities from a public health perspective. METHODS: The study was organized in three phases: an environmental scan to describe current research activity in BC; a consultation to identify needs, gaps and opportunities with those conducting research (key informants) and the end users of research results (stakeholders); and a prioritization of the research needs emerging from the consultation. RESULTS: Analysis and synthesis of the consultation data resulted in the identification of nine research themes, which were prioritized in the following order: efficacy and cost-benefit, disease patterns, emerging infectious disease, immunology and vaccines, disease-specific research, health promotion and communications, safe food and water, knowledge translation research and genomics. Six capacity-building themes were also identified: attraction and retention, education and training, collaboration and networks, funding, dissemination of findings, and public health input, surveillance, informatics and databases. INTERPRETATION: The findings were helpful in developing a multi-disciplinary, multi-level infectious disease research agenda linking researchers in universities, hospitals and public health institutions with practitioners and policy-makers in British Columbia's public health system. The approach is both feasible and important to undertake at the national level.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".