Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada needs to invest heavily in fundamental research or risk losing its place as a leader in innovation and discovery, a new report says. The analysis of Canada’s basic research investments comes from the Global Young Academy, an international society of young scientists. Canada’s overall investment in research and development has declined over the past decade, from 1.98% of gross domestic product in 2005 to 1.61% in 2014, the report points out. Basic research has been hardest hit. Success rates for grant applications at several major science funding agencies have fallen dramatically, including at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which saw a decline from 28% in 2005 to 14% in 2015. Funding has also shifted from fundamental to applied research, leaving many basic research scientists with little government funding, the report says. A survey of 1,300 Canadian researchers shows how that lack of funding has forced many to move
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".