Analyse bibliométrique de la contribution des postdoctorants canadiens à l’avancement des connaissances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Canada, les chercheurs postdoctoraux font face à de nombreux défis qui découlent d’une carence dans leur prise en charge par le système d'éducation supérieure. Puisque leurs données ne sont pas gérées de façon centralisée, leur population et leur contribution au système de recherche demeurent imprécises. Cette étude présente une analyse bibliométrique sur la production scientifique des stagiaires postdoctoraux financés par les organismes subventionnaires fédéraux canadiens et de la province de Québec de 2004 à 2008 (N = 3 454). Les résultats montrent que ces postdoctorants ont en moyenne une productivité égale ou supérieure à celle des doctorants et des membres du corps professoral québécois et que leur impact scientifique est supérieur à celui des deux autres groupes. On observe aussi que les postdoctorants ayant réalisé leur stage aux États-Unis présentent des indicateurs de productivité et d’impact plus élevés.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Incentives · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".