MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114493549 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n1p69

Challenges of the Health Research System in a Medical Research Institute in Iran: A Qualitative Content Analysis

2014· article· en· W2114493549 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchMedical researchContent analysisResearch designMedical educationPublishingDescriptive researchPublic relationsKnowledge managementSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIM: Medical research institute is the main basis for knowledge production through conducting research, and paying attention to the research is one of the most important things in the scientific communities. At present, there is a large gap between knowledge production in Iran compared to that in other countries. This study aimed to identify the challenge of research system in a research institute of medical sciences in Iran. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a descriptive and qualitative study conducted in the first 6 months of 2013. A qualitative content analysis was conducted on 16 heads of research centers in a research institute of medical sciences. The required data were gathered using semi-structured interviews. The collected data were analyzed using MAXQDA 10.0 software. RESULTS: Six themes identified as challenges of research system. The themes included barriers related to the design and development, and approval of research projects, the implementation of research projects, the administrative and managerial issues in the field of research, the personal problems, publishing articles, and guidelines and recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the present study, the following suggestions can be offered: pushing the research towards solving the problems of society, employing the strong executive and scientific research directors in the field of research, providing training courses for researchers on how to write proposals, implementing administrative reforms in the Deputy of Research and Technology, accelerating the approval of the projects through automating the administrative and peer-reviewing processes.

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)0.195
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1950.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.745
GPT teacher head0.690
Teacher spread0.055 · 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