Barreras para el desarrollo de investigación en medicina familiar en Iberoamérica: Revisión sistemática
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
Objective: To identify main barriers for the development of research in family medicine in Iberoamerica from articles published in Spanish. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA 2020. Original articles were selected, published until October 2021, which addressed existing barriers to the development of research in family medicine. The review was carried out through ScienceDirect, Scielo, and Google Scholar databases. Article's classification was made according to the locality, type of study, sample size, and main barriers detected. The quality of articles that met the selection criteria was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa and CASP checklists. Results: 207 articles were identified, nine met the selection criteria. Most of the studies identified lack of training in research methodology, time, institutional support, incentives, and trained tutors as the main barriers to research development. Conclusions: Common barriers and limitations were identified in the analyzed studies, which focused on the lack of training for students and teachers to develop research, as well as the lack of time and institutional support, among others. Comprehensive strategies are required to mitigate the effect of the barriers detected to strengthen research in family medicine.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 it