A national survey on small research grants and the scholarly productivity of emergency medicine physicians in Canada
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
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.
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 | 0.153 | 0.545 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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