MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515744565 · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2016.05.160076

Federal Research Funding for Family Medicine: Highly Concentrated, with Decreasing New Investigator Awards

2016· article· en· W2515744565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brianna J. Cameron, Andrew Bazemore, Christopher P. Morley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyAgency (philosophy)Family medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Grant fundingFunding AgencyDisease controlPrimary careHealth carePublic administrationEconomic growthEnvironmental healthPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A small proportion of National Institutes of Health and other federal research funding is received by university departments of family medicine, the largest primary care specialty. That limited funding is also concentrated, with roughly a quarter of all National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funding awarded to 3 departments, almost half of that funding coming from 3 agencies, and a recent trend away from funding for new investigators.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the American Board of Family MedicineSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207