MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962616566 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/3vgq7

Exploring Sex and/or Gender Disparities in STEMM Research Grant Funding - A Scoping Review Protocol

2023· other· en· W6962616566 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)MEDLINEGrant fundingData collectionHealth services researchResearch design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a prospective registration of a protocol for a scoping review that aims to provide a comprehensive mapping of the existing body of knowledge on sex and/or gender disparities in research grant funding across the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) fields. This constitutes the first version of the protocol. Included in the appendices are the search strategy specifically designed for the Ovid Medline database, as well as the original data extraction instrument.

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.181
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.181
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0200.017
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1280.031

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 head0.710
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainIncentives
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207