Surveying the landscape of CIHR-funded research data sharing practices: An analysis of the published literature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study will aim to accomplish two specific goals by assessing the availability of health sciences research datasets funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The first goal will be to understand the Canadian data sharing landscape by reviewing how and where Canadian health sciences researchers share their data. The second goal will be to compare Canadian researchers’ current data sharing practices to the Tri-agency’s proposed framework for research data management and sharing. The information gathered from this study will be used to identify gaps within the Canadian data sharing landscape, and help inform the future development of data policy, infrastructure and research data management support by highlighting the key challenges and opportunities with respect to data sharing in a Canadian context.
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.
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 | MetaresearchOpen science Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchOpen scienceScholarly communication Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.231 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.052 | 0.066 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.737 | 0.508 |
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 it