MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407050725 · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvaf003

Canadian approaches to research impact and its assessment

2024· article· en· W4407050725 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Phipps, Kathryn Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Evaluation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryImpactYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceImpact assessmentEconomic impact analysisComplement (music)Socioeconomic statusPolitical scienceResearch Assessment ExerciseRegional scienceSociologyPublic administrationEconomicsHigher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada does not have a national system wide assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of academic research. We do not have a Research Excellence Framework such as in the United Kingdom. Yet Canadian researchers, funders and institutions are interested in research impact, particularly the methods and processes for generating impacts to complement methods for assessing impact. At its heart, Canada is moving to combine its expertise in ‘how do we get to impact?’ with international expertise in ‘did we get to impact?’.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0540.055
Science and technology studies0.0150.020
Scholarly communication0.0320.008
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.936
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch EvaluationSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207