MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543132179 · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1086

Waiving confidentiality for the greater good

2006· review· en· W1543132179 on OpenAlexaff
An‐Wen Chan, Ross Upshur, Jerome Amir Singh, Davina Ghersi, François Chapuis, Douglas G. Altman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecrecyConfidentialityAffect (linguistics)Internet privacyComputer securityBusinessLaw and economicsPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomicsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research protocols are usually kept confidential to protect intellectual and commercial interests. But secrecy can also hide deviations that affect the validity of results and threaten the integrity of medical research

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.018
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.737
GPT teacher head0.671
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207