The European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaboration Programme: advancing respiratory science through successful collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Respiratory Society (ERS) is dedicated improving lung health and reduce the impact of respiratory diseases through scientific research, education, and advocacy. To achieve this goal, ERS established the Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC) programme in 2013. To date, there have been 32 CRCs created and currently 28 CRCs are active in eight major respiratory fields. The CRC programme has led to the creation of several large international networks and interdisciplinary initiatives which have resulted to novel scientific discoveries, new clinical practice guidelines, technical standards and patient and community resources. In this review article we highlight the CRC programme's structure and identify key aspects of a successful CRC, with the goal to encourage the next generation of CRCs which will address emerging areas of respiratory science.
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 | 0.044 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".