Estudo de avaliabilidade do programa de indução à pesquisa em saúde no Brasil para mitigar problemas relacionados à extrema pobreza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multidimensionality of poverty was the central premise of the Brazilian Without Misery Plan (2011-2014), which aimed at eradicating misery in the country. The Oswaldo Cruz Foundation coordinated a health research induction program that promoted research aimed at producing knowledge to mitigate problems related to misery. The evaluability study was guided by the theoretical and methodological instrument of the Theory of Change, which allowed us to trace the path from the initial scenario to an expected scenario, based on the induction results, represented in the logical model of the program, in which the structure, processes, and results were also described. Through document analysis and interviews with stakeholders, it was possible to identify the objectives, expected results of the program, as well as the public benefited by it and by the evaluation of the program’s results. This study guided the planning of the assessment that followed, as well as the definition of the Canadian model, to measure the return on health research investment as a methodological strategy. The limitations were recognized, as well as the issues that favored the implementation and development of the induction program. It is further hoped that this study may contribute to evaluations and/or pre-evaluations of other similarly targeted programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".