SS01-01 THE SHEFFIELD GROUP AND ITS ROLE IN GLOBAL OSH RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In 1988, a group of directors from national health and safety research facilities agreed that there would be value in creating a global network to discuss high level issues relating to the delivery of occupational health and safety research. The group held this first meeting in Sheffield (hence the “Sheffield Group”), and the Director of the UK facility was elected as the permanent Chair in perpetuity. The original membership included national labs from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Hungary, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Russian Federation, Israel, Turkey, Finland, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the USA. Materials and Methods Meetings of the Sheffield Group are held annually, hosted by one of the national labs. The purpose is to keep directors informed about programmes of research and national policy issues, and occasional collaborations across Institutes are also agreed. In 2003, PEROSH emerged from the Sheffield Group as a more formal mechanism to support joint research activities in Europe. Results The most recent meeting in Korea showcased the value of this network and provided insights which would not have been delivered through any other network. Conclusions The Sheffield Group is the only global network which supports directors of national occupational health and safety facilities. This not only allows a unique agenda of topics to be discussed but also helps to define why such national facilities are needed and the added value that they bring to national health and safety systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".