"A serious rift": The Indigenous Health Research Community's Refusal of the 2014 CIHR Funding Reforms and Underlying Methodological Conservatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) senior administration established reforms to the Open Suite of Programs and Peer Review processes (OSP), implementing changes that it claimed would improve its funding and peer review structures. The purpose of the research reported in this paper was to investigate how CIHR reforms to the OSP were poised to negatively affect Indigenous health research. We found that the reforms were guided by a governmental and institutional trajectory of methodological conservatism that (a) privileged commercial research over projects that focus on social determinants of health and community relations, and (b) created a peer review system re-designed in ways that reduce inclusiveness. Interventions by the CIHR Institute of Indigenous Peoples Health' Advisory Board and an ad-hoc Indigenous Health Research Steering Committee (kahwa:tsire) were urgently organized and mobilized to reverse the CIHR decisions that were being made under the guise of so-called 'consultation.’
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 | 0.551 | 0.536 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".