‘IRDiRC Recognized Resources’: a new mechanism to support scientists to conduct efficient, high-quality research for rare diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has created a quality label, 'IRDiRC Recognized Resources', formerly known as 'IRDiRC Recommended'. It is a peer-reviewed quality indicator process established based on the IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines to designate resources (ie, standards, guidelines, tools, and platforms) designed to accelerate the pace of discoveries and translation into clinical applications for the rare disease (RD) research community. In its first year of implementation, 13 resources successfully applied for this designation, each focused on key areas essential to IRDiRC objectives and to the field of RD research more broadly. These included data sharing for discovery, knowledge organisation and ontologies, networking patient registries, and therapeutic development. 'IRDiRC Recognized Resources' is a mechanism aimed to provide community-approved contributions to RD research higher visibility, and encourage researchers to adopt recognised standards, guidelines, tools, and platforms that facilitate research advances guided by the principles of interoperability and sharing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".