Getting evidence into practice: The work of the cochrane effective practice and organization of care group (EPOC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy makers and continuing educators often face difficult decisions about which educational and quality assurance interventions to provide. Where possible, such decisions are best informed by rigorous evidence, such as that provided by systematic reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organization that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining, and ensuring the accessibility of systematic reviews of the benefits and risks of health care interventions. International collaborative review groups prepare Cochrane reviews for publication in The Cochrane Library, a collection of databases available on CD-ROM and the World Wide Web and updated quarterly. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) aims to prepare and maintain systematic reviews of professional, financial, organizational, and regulatory interventions that are designed to improve professional practice and the delivery of effective health services. EPOC has 17 reviews and 20 protocols published in Issue 3, 2000, of the Cochrane Library, with further protocols in development. We also have undertaken an overview of previously published systematic reviews of professional behavior change strategies. Our specialized register contains details of over 1,800 studies that fall within the group's scope. Systematic reviews provide a valuable source of information for policy makers and educators involved in planning continuing education and quality assurance initiatives and organizational change. EPOC will attempt to keep the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions informed on an ongoing basis about new systematic reviews that it produces in the area of continuing medical education and quality assurance.
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 | 0.477 | 0.745 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.083 | 0.056 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".