MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295940709 · doi:10.1177/23743735221123424

Canada's First Experience With a Patient-Adjudicated Cancer Research Grant Competition: A Case Study

2022· article· en· W4295940709 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ruth Ackerman, Don Desserud, Nathalie Baudais, Debi Lascelle, Kimberly Badovinac

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Experience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerTerry Fox Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Cancer FoundationCancer Research Society
KeywordsAdjudicationInclusion (mineral)Competition (biology)Patient experiencePosition (finance)PsychologyPatient ConsentMedicinePolitical sciencePublic relationsMedical educationFamily medicineBusinessSocial psychologyLawHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although patient partners have been part of grant review panels, they are rarely given decision-making authority and never given sole responsibility for determining what research to fund. In patient-oriented research, however, patient partners may be in the best position to determine what is needed and whether the proposed research will engage patients in meaningful ways. The objective of this case study was to demonstrate that patient partners can adjudicate patient-oriented research proposals without the inclusion of researcher/expert reviewers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0430.012
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designCase report
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient ExperienceSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207