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 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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".