The research activities of Canadian community hospitals: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community hospitals represent 90% of Canadian hospitals, yet many lack the necessary infrastructure to conduct health research. This shortfall limits patient access to research studies, reduces study efficiency, and decreases the generalizability of study results. Previous work from our group identified an increase in publications from Ontario's large community hospitals between 2013 and 2022. However, data from other Canadian provinces is lacking. This bibliometric analysis identified indexed publications from authors affiliated with Canada's 544 community hospitals between 2018 and 2023. Among 13,689 publications, 12,472 unique articles were identified. Most were primary research articles (67%), with only 5% being clinical trials. Ontario's community hospitals had the highest number of publications (n = 7,925), followed by Alberta (n = 2,086) and Quebec (n = 1,480). Of Canada's 544 community hospitals, only 42% were affiliated with one or more publications from 2018 to 2023, highlighting the need to strengthen Canadian community hospital research capacity at a systems level.
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 | 0.016 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.202 | 0.327 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".