MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A living mapping review for COVID-19 funded research projects: 15 month update

2022· preprint· en· W4288096089 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Bucher, Emilia Antonio, Henrike Grund, Nusrat Jabin, Chantel Jones, Meron Kifle, Susan Khader, Geneviève Boily-Larouche, Morgan Lay, Alice Norton

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthInstitute of Infection and ImmunityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersEuropean CommissionUK Research and InnovationDepartment of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, UK GovernmentWellcome
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPreparednessPolitical scienceEconomic growthDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in an unprecedented research response, demonstrating exceptional examples of rapid research and collaboration. There has however been an ongoing need for greater coordination, with limited resources for research and the shifting global nature of the pandemics. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> The UK Collaborative on Development Research (UKCDR) and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), two funder coordination groups have collaborated to develop a live database of funded research projects across the world relating to COVID-19. Drawing data continually from their members and further global funding bodies, as of 15 <ns4:sup>th</ns4:sup> October 2021 the database contains 13,484 projects, funded by 285 funders, taking place across 156 countries representing an investment of at least $5.1 billion. To our knowledge it is one of the most comprehensive databases. The database is aligned to the World Health Organisation and GloPID-R Global Research Roadmap: 2019 Novel Coronavirus. It is being used by the WHO, governments and multi-lateral policy makers, research funders and researchers. </ns4:p> <ns4:p>This living mapping review aims to supplement the database by providing an open accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of the COVID-19 funded research portfolio. Both descriptive and thematic analysis will be presented and updated frequently to aid interpretation of the global COVID-19 funded research portfolio.</ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> In this version six analysis we provide an updated detailed descriptive analysis of the database (on data from three months after version five) and focus our thematic analysis on research gaps, research areas in need of coordination, study populations and research locations (with a focus on resource-limited countries). </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> As the global funding response to COVID-19 plateaus, this living mapping review helps both funders and researchers to prioritise resources to areas where there is continued unmet research need. </ns4:p>

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.000

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 head0.597
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.026 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207