MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201403049

Évaluation de l'incidence du financement public de la recherche universitaire québécoise dans le domaine de la biotechnologie

2009· article· fr· W2201403049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maxime Clerk-Lamalice

Bibliographic record

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche traitera de l’impact du financement public et prive de la recherche universitaire quebecoise dans le domaine de la biotechnologie. Plusieurs articles analysent deja en detail les types de collaboration entre universites, firmes et laboratoires gouvernementaux. Cependant, peu d’entre eux s’interessent aux deux problematiques suivantes, soit l’impact du financement initial des projets et l’evolution de la connaissance generee par la recherche et les collaborations entre chercheurs. En utilisant les donnees tirees de la base de donnees d’articles scientifiques Scopus d’Elsevier et du Systeme d’information sur la recherche universitaire (SIRU) detaillant le financement recu en termes de contrats et subventions, nous construisons une base de donnees du financement recu par les chercheurs universitaires et de leurs publications. Le critere de selection pour l’extraction d’un article est d’avoir au moins un co-auteur canadien. En utilisant les liens entre co-auteurs, nous construisons un reseau base sur les chercheurs au cours de la periode 1985-2005 a l’aide d’un logiciel developpe pour automatiser l’integration complexe de nos differentes sources de donnees de facon a generer une matrice d’analyse. A la suite de la construction du reseau, nous proposons un modele temporel de l’impact du financement de la recherche universitaire et des caracteristiques du reseau sur la production scientifique mesuree par la publication d’articles scientifiques. Les resultats suggerent que le financement individuel a un impact positif sur la production scientifique et que la categorisation du financement est necessaire pour comprendre l’impact reel sur la publication d’articles scientifiques. Le nombre croissant d’articles publies aujourd’hui peut etre explique de facon plus precise par les contrats recus depuis les trois dernieres annees et par les subventions recues depuis les cinq dernieres annees. L’environnement universitaire semble avoir un impact specifique sur le nombre de publications des chercheurs affilies.---------- ABSTRACT This study focuses on the impact of public and private financing of academic research in the Quebec biotechnology sector. Prior research analyzes the economic impact of university-industry-government collaborations but fewer studies are concerned with the initial funding and the resulting evolution of knowledge creation and dispersion by researchers. Using the information contained in Elsevier’s Scopus scientific articles database and the Quebec Systeme d’information sur la recherche universitaire (SIRU) which gives a detailed account of grants and contracts obtained by each researcher, we build a database of the funding received by individual academic researchers and their scientific publications. The selection criterion for an article to be extracted is that at least one Canadian scientist is a co-author. Using co-authorship links, we create the network of individual scientists for the period 1985-2005 with the help of custom built software whose purpose is to automate the complex integration of our multiple data sources and generate an analysis matrix. Following the network construction, we propose a time-related model of the impact of academic R&D financing and network structure on research output measured by the number of papers. Results suggest that individual funding has a positive effect on research output and that funding categorization is crucial in understanding the impacts on scientific publications. The increasing number of papers published today can be better explained by the contracts received in the past 3 years horizon and by the grants received in the past 5 years horizon. The university environment seems to have a specific effect on the level of research output for the biotechnology sector.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designObservational
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal)Same topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207