Best practices for enhancing surgical research: a perspective from the Canadian Association of Chairs of Surgical Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: The Canadian Association of Chairs of Surgical Research was created in 2014, with representation from every departmental surgical research committee across Canada, to establish Canadian surgical research as a beacon for health care innovation and to propose solutions for the daily challenges facing surgeon-researchers. Our key mandate has been to identify challenges for surgeons and scientists performing research to prevent further erosion of this vital area of activity that benefits patients, health care service providers and Canadian society. This article outlines the findings of a nationwide survey sent to all members of departments of surgery across Canada, seeking input on current threats and potential solutions. The results suggest that surgical research in Canada is experiencing a decline in funding and an increase in challenges affecting research productivity of academic surgeons, such as pressures to be clinically active, unpredictable surgical schedules, growing administrative demands, and increasing complexity of patient populations. Although surgeons are productive in their research endeavours, institutional changes and sharing of best practices are needed to ensure sustainable growth of research programs.
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 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 | 0.043 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".