Diversity of Authors of Publications From the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diverse perspectives improve the quality of scholarly initiatives. The demographic and professional diversity of scientists who contribute to critical care research and publications has not been described for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Our objective was to describe the diversity of authors of publications from the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. DESIGN: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of peer-reviewed articles published on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. SETTING: All peer-reviewed articles that were published on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group between 1994 and October 2020. SUBJECTS: For each publication, we recorded the study design, the number of authors, and national or international collaboration. For the lead author, the senior author, and each coauthor, we recorded the following facets of diversity: gender, professional role, medical discipline, geographic location, academic stage, and visible minority status. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 354 eligible publications; 74% (263/354) reported observational cohort studies, randomized trials, and surveys. Of 4,246 authors, 1,205 were unique individuals. The mean (sd) number of authors per publication was 12 (7.1). Of all 4,246 authors, 37% were women, and 13.7% were members of a visible minority group. Of all lead or senior authors, 40% and 34% respectively were women; 15% of lead and 10% of senior authors were members of a visible minority group. Three-quarters (73%) of publications listed authors from more than one profession, and more than half (54%) listed authors from more than one medical discipline. Nearly half of publications (45%) listed authors who were early career faculty, 33% listed authors who were trainees, and 67% listed authors who were from visible minority groups. Authors from different provinces and from different countries were listed in 67% and 40% of publications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Authors of Canadian Critical Care Trials Group publications are diverse with regard to demographic and professional characteristics.
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 | 0.121 | 0.405 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".