Canada's Neglected Tropical Disease Research Network: Who's in the Core—Who's on the Periphery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study designed and applied accessible yet systematic methods to generate baseline information about the patterns and structure of Canada's neglected tropical disease (NTD) research network; a network that, until recently, was formed and functioned on the periphery of strategic Canadian research funding. METHODOLOGY: MULTIPLE METHODS WERE USED TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY, INCLUDING: (1) a systematic bibliometric procedure to capture archival NTD publications and co-authorship data; (2) a country-level "core-periphery" network analysis to measure and map the structure of Canada's NTD co-authorship network including its size, density, cliques, and centralization; and (3) a statistical analysis to test the correlation between the position of countries in Canada's NTD network ("k-core measure") and the quantity and quality of research produced. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over the past sixty years (1950-2010), Canadian researchers have contributed to 1,079 NTD publications, specializing in Leishmania, African sleeping sickness, and leprosy. Of this work, 70% of all first authors and co-authors (n = 4,145) have been Canadian. Since the 1990s, however, a network of international co-authorship activity has been emerging, with representation of researchers from 62 different countries; largely researchers from OECD countries (e.g. United States and United Kingdom) and some non-OECD countries (e.g. Brazil and Iran). Canada has a core-periphery NTD international research structure, with a densely connected group of OECD countries and some African nations, such as Uganda and Kenya. Sitting predominantly on the periphery of this research network is a cluster of 16 non-OECD nations that fall within the lowest GDP percentile of the network. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The publication specialties, composition, and position of NTD researchers within Canada's NTD country network provide evidence that while Canadian researchers currently remain the overall gatekeepers of the NTD research they generate; there is opportunity to leverage existing research collaborations and help advance regions and NTD areas that are currently under-developed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".