Evaluation of Funding Gastroenterology Research in Canada Illustrates the Beneficial Role of Partnerships
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Funders of health research in Canada seek to determine how their funding programs impact research capacity and knowledge creation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a focused grants and award program that was cofunded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes, and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology; and to measure the impact of the Program on the career paths of funded researchers and assess the outcomes of research supported through the Program. METHODS: A survey of the recipients of grants and awards from 2000 to 2008 was conducted in 2012. The CIHR Funding Decisions database was searched to determine subsequent funding; a bibliometric citation analysis of publications arising from the Program was performed. RESULTS: Of 160 grant and award recipients, 147 (92%) completed the survey. With >$17.4 million in research funding, support was provided for 131 fellowship awards, seven career transition awards, and 22 operating grants. More than three-quarters of grant and award recipients continue to work or train in a research-related position. Combined research outputs included 545 research articles, 130 review articles, 33 book chapters and 11 patents. Comparative analyses indicate that publications supported by the funding program had a greater impact than other Canadian and international comparators. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity in support of a long-term health research funding partnership strengthened the career development of gastroenterology researchers in Canada, and enhanced the creation and dissemination of new knowledge in the discipline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it