Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensus statement to improve interaction is timely and welcome Occupational Medicine (the journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine) recently published a consensus statement on the interaction between general practitioners and occupational health professionals in their roles in vocational rehabilitation.1 This was derived by using a Delphi technique to solicit the views of interested and influential individuals from industry, insurance, academia, representative organisations, government departments, and universities.2 3 The statement emphasises the potential benefits of work and the importance of vocational rehabilitation in restoring an optimal lifestyle to individuals recovering from illness and injury. Anecdotally, examples of excellent communication between general practitioners and occupational health professionals exist, but poor or non-existent communication is common. At times the relationship may become adversarial, with the patient unable to understand the respective roles. This has an impact on patients' rehabilitation to useful work. Poor communication is not restricted to the United Kingdom and has been shown to act as an impediment to rehabilitation elsewhere.4 5 The …
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 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 | 0.028 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".