MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005805708 · doi:10.1097/nan.0b013e31821130a6

Effective Grant Writing

2011· article· en· W2005805708 on OpenAlexaff
Ann M. Berger, Tiffany A. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infusion Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationGrant writingComputer scienceMedical educationEngineering ethicsProcess managementEngineering managementMedicineLibrary scienceBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infusion therapy nurses can be successful in obtaining research funding by understanding and executing the important steps of effective grant writing. This article provides information on and discussion about these essential steps to prepare successful applications: identifying funding options, recognizing the importance of writing time, implementing documentation on why research is needed, understanding the components of a research grant, implementing innovative ideas, and identifying characteristics of effectively written grants.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.420
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.420
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.013

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infusion NursingSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207