Организационно-методические возможности для занятий научными исследованиями в медицинских организациях железнодорожного транспорта Российской Федерации
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main thing in medicine is creation of percieved scientific community among practitioners, it forms the basis for uderstaning principles of evidence-based medicine by doctors, new medical technologies, transition to international criterea. The opinion poll among doctors was hold to study opinion of doctors in health organizations of railway transport about the state of studies, their relations to them, problems and possible solutions. Among all survey participants only 2,2 out of 100 are engaged in research activities, 0,7 out of 100 doctors have science degree. Among the problems preventing doctors from doing researches in healthcare facility is the problem of absence of motivation, it is the main one (35,3), the second place takes the problem of absence of desire for lack of career growth (30,9), the quarter of doctors (25,2) left the matter open. Hereby, on the one hand, scientific activities require particular abilities and skills, on the other hand, it is a doctor who is able to observe patients, collect and get data being into face-to-face communication with patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".