MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341060829 · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv046

A national survey on small research grants and the scholarly productivity of emergency medicine physicians in Canada

2016· article· en· W2341060829 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.D. Artz, Mete Erdogan, Robert S. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Evaluation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationProductivityFamily medicineCommitMedicineMedical educationPolitical sciencePsychologyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small research grants can provide a funding source for novice physician-scientists during residency or as junior investigators. However, it is unknown if emergency medicine (EM) grant recipients benefit beyond the immediate monetary infusion of these modest awards (<$5,000). To better understand the role of small grants in EM research, we evaluated the scholarly productivity of previous recipients of a Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) research grant and compared the portion of career researchers among the recipients to all certified Canadian EM physicians. A 27-question online survey was developed and distributed to the recipients to ask about their CAEP grant project and research career productivity. Of the 96 grant recipients, 56 completed the survey (58% response rate). Respondents reported a high rate of project completion (95%) and publication success. Many recipients (85%) held an academic appointment, and 47% had formal research positions. In Canada, 2.5% of all certified EM physicians (n = 3,699) and 9.5% of EM specialists (n = 978) are currently involved in research. CAEP grant recipients are 5-fold and nearly 20-fold more likely than the population of certified EM specialists or all certified EM physicians, respectively, to be involved in research. As there are few funding sources in Canada for small EM-related projects, the finding that a considerably great proportion of physicians who are funded by these small grants (versus the entire pool of EM-trained physicians) commit to research as part of their career suggests that the funds may be meaningful beyond both the monetary support and project completion. The results of our evaluation indicate that modest research grants can support physician-researchers early in their careers, and many of these researchers continue with future research success, including research appointments, funding, and scholarly publications.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.750
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch EvaluationSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207