MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

New Funding Schemes Aim to Retain Top Academic Talent

2005· article· en· W1602602057 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wayne Kondro

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Occupational Therapists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Political scienceBusinessPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To discourage such campus-hopping, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) has decided to give institutions a better chance of retaining their prized researchers. It's part of several programmatic changes at the foundation, an independent entity created by the government in 1997 to improve Canada's research infrastructure, as it prepares to spend the last billion dollars of a $3.1 billion endowment. One $262 million program has been tweaked to let universities--who receive block grants based on an assessment of faculty productivity--provide infrastructure for established as well as newly hired professors. CFI has also changed the rules for a core fund, which is preparing for a $276 million competition, to allow previous recipients to come back to the table for another bite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.020

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience→Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→