MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365135020 · doi:10.2196/40660

An Investigation of Factors Influencing the Postponement of the Use of Distributed Research Networks in South Korea: Web-Based Users’ Survey Study

2023· article· en· W4365135020 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaKorea Health Industry Development InstituteNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPostponementWorkloadSample (material)Web surveyPoint (geometry)PsychologyRaw dataComputer scienceMedical educationKnowledge managementBusinessMarketingMedicineWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Distributed research networks (DRNs) offer researchers the advantage of using various big data sets that are difficult to access and use. In addition, since the data are not physically exposed to the outside, it is possible to conduct research using medical data safely without data exposure. However, researchers still have difficulties and are concerned about using DRNs. Few studies involving DRNs have been conducted from the user’s viewpoint. Therefore, it is necessary to look at DRNs from the researcher’s point of view and find ways to facilitate the active use of DRNs. Objective This study aimed to identify the factors that made researchers hesitate to use DRNs and to derive a method to facilitate active DRN use. Methods We conducted a web-based survey of people working in the medical fields, such as hospitals and universities. We used 131 respondents’ data from a survey from December 6 to 17, 2021. We conducted multiple regression analyses to determine the factors affecting the postponement of using DRNs. In addition, 2 independent sample t tests were conducted to analyze the difference between the 2 groups according to the following factors: organization, gender, experience with DRNs, length of the research career, position, and age. Results Performance risk (t5=2.725, P=.007) and workload from DRNs (t5=3.543, P=.001) were significantly associated with users’ postponement of DRN use. Researchers working at hospitals were found to feel more burdened by DRN use than researchers working at universities (t129=1.975, P=.05). It was also found that women perceived a higher privacy risk of DRNs than men (t129=–2.303, P=.02) and that those who had experience using DRNs delayed their use less than those without experience (t129=–4.215, P<.001). Conclusions It is necessary to simplify the research and approval processes to reduce the performance risk and workload of research using DRNs. To optimize the process, DRN providers should develop a way to improve users’ experiences. More user-friendly functionalities should be developed from the researcher's point of view. It is necessary to continuously promote effective functionalities for DRNs to reduce concerns about privacy risks. This study identified the concerns of DRN users in terms of DRN use and suggested ways to actively use DRNs. The derived results can be reflected in planning and developing DRNs. Our research will be helpful to prepare an activation plan for DRNs.

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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.011
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.095 · 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