Decoding Funded Research: Comparative Analysis of Topic Models and Uncovering the Effect of Gender and Geographic Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing national scientific investment requires a clear understanding of evolving research trends and the demographic and geographical forces shaping them, particularly in light of commitments to equity, diversity, and inclusion. This study addresses this need by analyzing 18 years (2005-2022) of research proposals funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We conducted a comprehensive comparative evaluation of three topic modelling approaches: Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), Structural Topic Modelling (STM), and BERTopic. We also introduced a novel algorithm, named COFFEE, designed to enable robust covariate effect estimation for BERTopic. This advancement addresses a significant gap, as BERTopic lacks a native function for covariate analysis, unlike the probabilistic STM. Our findings highlight that while all models effectively delineate core scientific domains, BERTopic outperformed by consistently identifying more granular, coherent, and emergent themes, such as the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence. Additionally, the covariate analysis, powered by COFFEE, confirmed distinct provincial research specializations and revealed consistent gender-based thematic patterns across various scientific disciplines. These insights offer a robust empirical foundation for funding organizations to formulate more equitable and impactful funding strategies, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the scientific ecosystem.
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 | 0.031 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".