Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims How can we translate evidence for policy and practice? This workshop will introduce the principles, methods and critiques of systematic reviews. On completion participants will: have a basic understanding of the purposes of systematic research synthesis and its relevance to evidence-informed policy and practice; have discussed a variety of systematic review models; have received a general overview of the standard stages of a systematic review. Target audience This workshop will be of interest to policy makers, practitioners and researchers with an interest in conducting or using systematic reviews. It is designed for people with no, or almost no, prior knowledge of synthesis research. Date and Venue 9.30 – 5.30pm Wednesday, March 12, 2008 ESRC Regional Training Centre, Queen's University, 69/71 University Street, Belfast, BT7 1HL Booking To book a place on the workshop download the booking form http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/Forms/Booking%20form%20Belfast%20120308.pdf and fax the completed form back to (020 7612 6400). Alternatively, e-mail p.rose@ioe.ac.uk to have a booking form sent out to you. Please let us know if you would like the booking form in another format. Accessibility If you have a disability, sensory impairment, medical condition, specific learning difficulty, or mental health problem requiring extra support during the workshop, it is essential that you contact us as soon as possible so we will be able to arrange this support in good time. Further information can be obtained from: Philip James Rose Social Science Research Unit Institute of Education, University of London 18 Woburn Square London WC1H 0NR E-mail: p.rose@ioe.ac.uk Tel: 0207 612 6391 or EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=830
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 | 0.106 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.122 | 0.117 |
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".