How the RCGP Research Paper of the Year 2020 reflects our motto <i>‘Cum Scientia Caritas’</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Research Paper of the Year (RPY), awarded by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), gives recognition to an individual or group of researchers who have undertaken and published an exceptional piece of research relating to general practice or primary care. The three categories are Clinical Research, Health Services Research (including Implementation and Public Health), and Medical Education related to Primary Care. Papers are scored on the criteria of originality, impact, contribution to the reputation of general practice, scientific approach, and presentation. This year, we invited submissions reporting COVID-19 research to each category. The RCGP’s motto Cum Scientia Caritas means ‘scientific knowledge applied with compassion’. We feel the winning papers for RPY 2020 really reflect this ethos. The overall winner of the RPY 2021 award, from 53 submissions, came from Sohal and colleagues from London and Bristol: ‘Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in UK primary care: interrupted time series evaluation of a system-level training and support programme’ …
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 | 0.080 | 0.313 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.078 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.096 |
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".