Survey of “northern” child and maternal health research being conducted in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study is to better understand the scope of research being conducted by Canadian paediatric and maternal health centres on the topic of maternal child health of northern populations. In addition, the results are intended to help assess the prospects for the creation of a research network dedicated to this topic. STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire study complemented with review of database. METHODS: Data were collected using a short questionnaire with qualitative and quantitative questions. Surveys were sent by email to members of two Canadian national paediatric groups, representing 17 organizations. Supplementary information was obtained through review of the database for research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and by the International Polar Year Program. RESULTS: Response was limited, with most input coming from academic environments with a strong commitment to research conducted among northern populations. Research focuses included health as well as other disciplines. The definition of "the North" provided by respondents fit generally within the operational definition identified by the researchers. CONCLUSIONS: The topic of maternal and child health is more thoroughly examined among rural and remote populations than specifically among northern populations. The existence of a type of network, the evidence of a lack of inter-institutional communication and the identified need for support lead to the conclusion that a formal research network would be of benefit. Research is already funded by national funding agencies, suggesting that there may be an opportunity to collaborate with a national agency in the development of an appropriate network.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".