MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393869991 · doi:10.1017/cts.2024.270

296 Investing in Community-Led Research Capacity Building: New Seed Grant Type

2024· article· en· W4393869991 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jen Brown, Claudia Galeno-Sanchez, Corella Payne, Sista Yaa Simpson, P.A.N. Reddy, Pedro Serrano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlNorthwestern University
KeywordsLibrary scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We will describe the community-driven development and impact of the new Community Research Capacity-Building grants from the Alliance for Research in Chicagoland Communities, Northwestern University. Communities expressed that to enter equitably into partnerships with academics they need support to build their own community research capacity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: ARCC Seed Grants, since 2008, included Partnership Development and Research Pilots, which are both jointly submitted by a community-academic partnership. The new Community Grants are submitted only by community partners and don’t require an academic partner. These grants, $3,000 over 6 months, support the development or strengthening of organizational or community-level research capacity. This may include assessing community capacity to lead and/or collaborate on research; building research capacity of community organizations (staff, leadership, residents), developing community infrastructure (e.g. research principles; staff research responsibilities; process for assessing/ tracking researcher inquiries; template memorandum of understanding) or community research priorities, etc. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Eight ARCC Community Research Capacity-Building Seed Grants have been awarded so far as a part of three cycles of applications over 2022-23 (2 in 2022, 6 in 2023). During this time period, data has been collected during the application process, in final reports, and in informal group and individual discussions. Information about the profile of grantees (community representation, health focus, etc.), the initial impact of grants, and feedback from grantees about the positive and challenging aspects of the grants will be shared. Grantees have informally shared that the awards have helped to address concerns that many low-income communities of color have their voices are not adequately included in research and other decision-making. The poster will be co-presented by a community grant recipient. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: To ensure that research partnerships are community-driven & equitable, it is necessary to invest in community research capacity-building. More evaluation is needed to understand the grants impact, as well as other approaches to community research capacity and leadership development. Poster will be co-presented by a community grant recipient.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.700
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.077 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Translational ScienceSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207