MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995750539 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2007.18870

Divvying Up the Funding Pie: What Share for Health Services and Policy Research?

2007· article· en· W1995750539 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetallurgical and Alloy Processes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsResearch policyHealth servicesPolitical scienceHealth services researchBaseline (sea)Grant fundingHealth policyPublic administrationLibrary scienceHealth careEconomic growthMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. 1 Even after the contributions of other important federal funders of health services research are accounted for, the increase remains impressive -from a baseline of about $8 million pre-CIHR to $44.1 million in 2005/06. 2 This massive growth in federal support should warm the hearts of health services researchers and all those who believe that a vastly expanded pool of relevant research evidence is needed to inform health policy development and health system management in the public interest. However, viewed in the context of the distribution of CIHR funding across its four research themes -biomedical; clinical; health systems and services; and population and public health -the picture is less comforting.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.292 · 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