A Study of Collaboration Among Medical Informatics Research Laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The InterMed Collaboratory involves five medical institutions (Stanford University, Columbia University, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and McGill University) whose mandate has been to join in the development of shared infrastructural software, tools, and system components that will facilitate and support the development of diverse, institution-specific applications. Collaboration among geographically distributed organizations with different goals and cultures provides significant challenges. One experimental question, underlying all that InterMed has set out to achieve, is whether modern communication technologies can effectively bridge such cultural and geographical gaps, allowing the development of shared visions and cooperative activities so that the end results are greater than any one group could have accomplished on its own. In this report we summarize the InterMed philosophy and mission, describe our progress over three years of collaborative activities, and present study results regarding the nature of the evolving collaborative processes, the perceptions of the participants regarding those processes, and the role that telephone conference calls have played in furthering project goals. Both informal introspection and more formal observational work, in which project participants became subjects of study by our evaluation experts from McGill, helped to shift our activities from relatively unfocused to more focused efforts while allowing us to understand the facilitating roles that communications technologies could play in our activities. Our experience and study results suggest that occasional face-to-face meetings are crucial precursors to the effective use of distance communications technologies; that conference calls play an impo...
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".