Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current issue of the Journal, which completes nine volumes of publication, contains seven papers of importance to the evaluation and development of health services. In the opening article, the Editor's Choice, Buckley and colleagues, writing from the University of Toronto, Canada, describe the results of their study which applied a ‘stages of change’ model to enhance the evaluation of a research transfer course, providing insights into where barriers to change exist for research transfer action. Contributions from Canada continue with a paper from Geiger and Derman who outline their methodology for evaluating physician order entry implementation demonstrating the utility of their system via a case study which illustrates how the methodology is being employed at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. In a British contribution, Pagliari and associates, writing from the University of Dundee, Scotland, describe a formative evaluation in primary care of a multi-faceted web-based resource for diabetes management where the primary aims were to assess the usability and utility of the prototype in order to inform system refinements prior to implementation and to investigate barriers and facilitators to system use and therefore to assist the development of a tailored implementation plan, describing interesting results. A further study in the primary care setting is provided by Sequeira and co-workers at the Arabian Gulf University who in an analysis of anti-hypertensive prescribing paterns, were able to identify gender-based differences within the same practice setting. Interestingly, the preference for a particular class of drugs was also influenced by the presence of co-morbidity and by the level of training of primary care physicians. Returning to the United Kingdom, Kirk-Smith and Stretch at the University of Ulster, examine, provocatively, how the practise of science in medicine may in their view be subverted by the professionalism of medicine with particular reference to the cultural differences between scientists and clinicians and their approach to authority. Their distinctive contribution is followed by a further Irish paper by Parahoo and colleagues focused on the evaluation of provision of clinical information to patients prior to diagnostic gastroscopy procedures. Finally, Steinmetz and Greisen, writing from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, describe the influence of clinical guideline development and implementation on improving blood gas control in mechanically ventilated, premature infants.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.139 | 0.130 |
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".