Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new UK newborn resuscitation guidelines were published online on the 18th of October 20101 simultaneously with the European guidelines.2 Both are based upon evidence derived from a critical evaluation of relevant scientific publications over the preceding 5 years3 4 organised and co-ordinated by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), with simultaneous publication of guidelines and evidence.1,–,5 This article summarises both the process and changes. Representatives of the American Heart Association, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Resuscitation Council of South Africa founded the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) in 1992. Other organisations subsequently joined and in 1995 the task force of ILCOR established a neonatal subgroup. After the 2005 ILCOR publication,6 this subgroup became an autonomous neonatal task force. For 2010, as with the previous evidence evaluation processes, the specific questions to be evaluated were informed by priorities identified by task forces and individual councils/organisations, review of the research gaps analysis and a thorough systematic approach called ‘evidence mapping’ based on the previous guidelines.7 The questions were structured into a standardised format (PICO: population/patient, intervention, comparison, outcome; http://www.cebm.net/?o=1036).8 Each question was allocated to two worksheet authors selected to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Worksheets were reviewed by the neonatal task force chair and evidence evaluation experts whose feedback guided subsequent revision, and they were subsequently posted on the ILCOR and American Heart Association websites. They were open to comment, which informed further evaluation and revision. From this evidence, consensus statements on …
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 | 0.073 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".