MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967534107 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262

Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect

2005· article· en· W1967534107 on OpenAlexaff
Franklin G. Miller, David Wendler, Leora C. Swartzman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsDeceptionMillerPsychologyPlaceboResearch ethicsSocial psychologyPlacebo responseMedicineAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common feature of research investigating the placebo effect is deception of research participants about the nature of the research. Miller and colleagues examine the ethical issues surrounding such deception.

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)0.263
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.480
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2630.480
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.039
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0210.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.164 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations167
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207