 Alright, so I'm going to talk about Trove's integration with Orchard, where now we've been doing it for a year. And if we talk about Orchard being one of those end-to-once reuse-often, that's the great thing about it, Trove is one of those reuse-often cases. So this is the people and organisations zone in Trove. If you haven't met it before, it's where we collect together records describing people. We set up a container for a single person and bring together all the records describing them from different institutions and systems. So here's an example, Marcia Langton. Records about her exist in four different systems that we work with. So we bring them together here in one big Marcia Langton container. The container does useful things like it connects all the system identifiers for other systems to reuse and that's behind the scenes. But for a user it also brings together bits of information like biographies, publications that she's authored and related people and organisations. Now we have a small but constant demand from modern-day authors and researchers to be able to take control of this Trove profile, to update the record, to write their own biography and we don't have a local system capable of doing that. So we send them to Orchard. They need to set up a profile there and then they need to start using it. So that means including it when they submit articles for publications and ideally in their university's institutional repository if that's possible. I won't really go into the how, just know that Trove relies on a slightly complicated web of systems to try and identify just the Australians in Orchard. DOIs are the key across all those systems so when researchers have good metadata like DOIs in their repository record and the matching DOI in their Orchard profile then Trove will find them or even better if they include the full Orchard URL in repository publication records we'll go straight out to Orchard and grab their record. So what are the benefits for researchers? Well number one, they get a presence in Trove. If you're not Marcia Langton and you don't have records describing you in four systems, you might be someone like Alex Brown here, then setting up an Orchard will create you a record in Trove. When I checked last year about 90% of researchers we get from Orchard were new to Trove so that's really important. Setting up an Orchard, making yourself Australian will get you into Trove. They can write their own biography, it doesn't have to be extensive even if it's only brief enough to distinguish them from other people with a similar name. Trove auto-generates this list of resources. It thinks that this researcher wrote based purely on author name. So if someone has a common name like Alex Brown does, it's generally not going to be stuff they've actually written and we know that researchers themselves find that really frustrating. If they have an Orchard, then Trove will replace that list with the definitive publications from Orchard. So that includes when they've moved institutions. We also love it when they include keywords. These get roughly translated into occupations and it helps people who come along in Trove looking to find researchers in a certain field. So we encourage people to include information like their education and employment and as Natasha showed us earlier, if they give the right permissions then institutions can actually do this on their behalf. But when they include that in their Orchard profile it makes a researcher even more findable both to users and to their colleagues. So here's a search in Trove that's limited to people from UQ that nominated diabetes as a research field that they're working in. Someone might conduct this search if they're another researcher in the field, if they're a journalist looking for a comment, if they're staff from a government department, a post-doctoral student, there's quite an extensive list of people that are looking. But whoever it is, more information in their Orchard record makes the researcher more findable in lots of systems beyond Orchard. And this is one example where people are looking in Trove. We're also really keen for people to include grant identifiers. So if they've received a grant particularly from the ARC or the NH and MRC, those organizations want to know that their open access mandates are being met, they want to link the people they gave grants to with publications. So entering the grant ID on their Orchard record can mean less work on reporting for everyone involved. We've also seen some really cool stuff happening with funder grant IDs in Trove recently. So here I've done a search for a grant number in Trove. It's showing me the people who worked on that and nominated it on their Orchard profile. And on the right-hand side, you can see that Trove's also showing the publications and data sets that came from that same grant number. So all from the same search just of the grant number. So I guess the key message to take back to researchers from Trove is that if a researcher has an Orchard, they take care of it, they use it, they water it in their greenhouse, then one of the benefits will be that they take control of their profile in lots of other systems. Trove is just one of them. Now it's all great and I want everyone to take that back, but I don't want to sound like I'm just hard selling, there's a bit of a reality check. It's not all sunshine and beautiful flowers. We know that what Trove gets is skewed. So we've got about 12,000 Australians from Orchard today. They're predominantly from the physical sciences and education and there's a real lean towards medicine. These are the top 10 keywords that researchers nominated as their fields. Trove, the way we've set up the system, has a really tough time finding humanities researchers. We don't have real-time updating like we should. Once a researcher initially comes in, the records only update once a month and we know some researchers find that frustrating because they find their profile in Trove, they specifically go to Orchard to update it and then they don't see their results straight away. And finally, our Australianness test is quite rigorous. We initially didn't have it and we were vastly overwhelmed with foreigners. So that test will skip anyone that doesn't set up their education or employment fields or specifically name one of the Australian universities or research institutes in their biography. But our Orchard integration is a success story from our point of view. I've just written a blog post about our experience one year on. It's meant less work for us, it's meant much more correct data in Trove but also much more correct data in lots of other systems. It's a great way for a researcher to get their profile out to have it be correct to take control in many more places. I might leave it there and hand over to Scott.