Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fremveksten av kunnskapsbasert praksis har ført til økt fokus på å gjøre forskningsbasert kunnskap lettere tilgjengelig. 6S-pyramiden, som er utviklet av McMaster University i Canada, er en modell som viser hvordan helsefaglig forskning kan plasseres på seks ulike nivåer, avhengig av graden av oppsummering og kvalitetsvurdering. Modellen kan brukes som et verktøy når man skal velge relevante søkekilder.Den mest sammenstilte kunnskapen om ulike tilstander og sykdommer finner man i kliniske oppslagsverk og kunnskapsbaserte retningslinjer. De har som formål å tilby kunnskapsbaserte og oppdaterte anbefalinger om diagnostisering, behandling og oppfølging av spesifikke utvalgte tilstander i lettlest format.Om man søker etter litteratur til bruk i utarbeidelsen av fagprosedyrer, retningslinjer, systematiske oversikter eller lignende oppsummeringer, må det utføres søk i bibliografiske databaser og andre lignende kilder. Man bør først lete etter systematiske oversikter og eventuelt utvide søket etter primærstudier dersom man ikke finner oppdaterte, relevante systematiske oversikter.Helsebiblioteket.no er et offentlig finansiert nettbibliotek som gir gratis tilgang til norske og internasjonale kunnskapskilder. Helsebiblioteket kjøper tilgang til lisensbelagte ressurser som kliniske oppslagsverk, databaser og tidsskrifter. Mange av kildene nevnt i denne artikkelen inngår i Helsebibliotekets samling. I tillegg er nettsiden en delingsplattform for norske retningslinjer, prosedyrer og annet stoff som utvikles i det offentlige helse-Norge.Ormstad SS, Underdal H. Information sources for evidence-based practice. Nor J Epidemiol 2013; 23 (2): 221-224.ENGLISH SUMMARY The development of evidence-based practice has led to an increased focus on making research-based evidence easily accessible. The 6S model, developed by McMaster University in Canada, is a model that describes how health-related research evidence can be sorted out on six different levels. The higher one comes in the model, the more summarized and quality-assured the evidence is. The 6S model can be used as a tool when selecting relevant sources for the literature search.The most compiled evidence on various conditions and diseases can be found in evidence-based point of care tools and clinical practice guidelines. They are designed to offer comprehensive and up-to-date recommendations on diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of specific conditions condensed into easily digestible formats.When looking for relevant research evidence to be included in clinical procedures, clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, one should conduct searches in bibliographic databases and other similar sources. One should first try to find systematic reviews or similar evidence syntheses written about the topic of interest, and expand the search for primary studies only if no relevant up-to-date systematic reviews are available.The Norwegian Electronic Health Library (helsebiblioteket.no) is a publicly funded e-library that provides free access to many Norwegian and international sources. The Norwegian Electronic Health Library purchases access to licensed resources, such as clinical reference works, databases, and journals. Many of the sources mentioned in this article are included in the collection of the Electronic Health Library. In addition, the e-library is a sharing platform for Norwegian clinical practice guidelines, clinical procedures, and other materials developed in the public health care system in Norway.
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 | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".