MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412381049 · doi:10.1177/27536386251355325

Exploring Paramedicine's Research Infrastructure in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4412381049 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueParamedicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthQueen's UniversityThe Scarborough HospitalThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical infrastructureEnvironmental planningGeographyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Paramedicine is expanding in scope and diversifying its contributions to healthcare systems and society. To achieve sustainable and meaningful development, paramedicine (like other health professions) must prioritize the generation and use of high-quality evidence to guide practice, policy, and innovation. However, paramedicine's progression has been criticized for lacking a sufficient evidence base, undermining its decision-making. We sought to examine the existing infrastructure within a paramedicine context that supports the community to engage in, produce, and/or use research. Methods: This qualitative study employed semistructured interviews analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit and enroll those engaged in research capacity development and contributions in Ontario, Canada, representing diverse roles within the paramedicine community. The interview guide was informed by Cooke's six-principle research capacity framework: skills, collaboration, infrastructure, ownership, research-practice linkages, and culture. Data were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase method. Member checking was employed, offering participants the opportunity to review their transcripts for accuracy and to provide revision/elaborations. Results: Twenty-four individuals were interviewed. Two overarching themes emerged: (1) Structural and Cultural Foundations for Research, highlighting infrastructure challenges, fragmented pathways, cultural resistance, and a reliance on informal networks, and (2) Systemic Integration and Strategic Alignment underscoring calls for long-term growth, broader healthcare system integration, solving inequities in access to research infrastructure, better data access and governance, clear leadership on research, and demonstrations of value. Conclusion: Ontario's paramedicine community faces significant challenges to research engagement, capacity building, and contributions, hindering the profession's ability to support the growth and use of a research and evidence ecosystem. Several implications and recommendations are outlined, including attending to internal (e.g., research infrastructure, professional integration) and external (e.g., strengthening collaboration and partnerships) factors and policy goals. International contexts are considered.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.263 · 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