MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407108562 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14062.1

Process Evaluation of a Rapid Evidence Support System Assessment of Ireland’s Department of Health – A Protocol

2025· preprint· en· W4407108562 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Tierney, Barbara Whelan, Nikita N. Burke, Caitriona M. Creely, Catherine H. Gill, Mary Horgan, John N. Lavis, Teresa Maguire, John O’Neill, Elaine Toomey, Kerry Waddell, Declan Devane

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersPublic Health AgencyHealth Research Board
KeywordsProtocol (science)Process (computing)Process managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceBusinessMedicineOperating systemAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p>Background The Rapid Evidence Support System Assessment (RESSA) was developed by the Global Evidence Commission to evaluate evidence support systems that inform policy decisions. These systems are designed to contextualize existing evidence, guide decision-making, and generate new insights to inform action. As evidence-informed policymaking gains traction globally, it is essential to evaluate these systems’ effectiveness. In Ireland, the Health Research Board, the Department of Health, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Cochrane Ireland, and the Global Evidence Commission are collaborating to conduct a RESSA within the Department of Health. This process evaluation aims to assess the fidelity, acceptability, and experiences of stakeholders involved in the RESSA, providing insights for refining the methodology. Methods The process evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative data collection. It will evaluate the conduct of a RESSA within the Department of Health. Fidelity assessment will examine adherence to the RESSA protocol, while acceptability will be evaluated using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, focusing on key stakeholders' attitudes. An exploration of the experiences of participants, capturing both facilitators and barriers to the RESSA’s success will also be conducted. Data analysis will involve thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, aiming to highlight the RESSA’s methodological strengths and areas for improvement. Conclusions This evaluation is expected to provide critical insights into the strengths and limitations of the RESSA methodology, with implications for evidence-informed policymaking. Findings will offer recommendations to enhance the robustness and applicability of the RESSA in Ireland and beyond. Dissemination will include academic publications and reports, contributing to the broader understanding of effective evidence support systems. This process evaluation aims to inform future RESSAs and strengthen the evidence support framework, ensuring better-informed policy decisions at local, national, and international levels.</ns3:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.946
GPT teacher head0.848
Teacher spread0.098 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207