MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970895608 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100017108

Ethical and Legal Considerations for Canadian Registries

2013· review· en· W1970895608 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David B. Hogan, Janet Warner, Scott B. Patten, Glenys Godlovitch, Essie Mehina, Lynn Dagenais, Guillermo Fiebelkorn, Paula de Robles, Gail MacKean, Lisa Casselman, Nathalie Jetté, Tamara Pringsheim, Lawrence Korngut, Megan Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Content (measure theory)PsychologyInternet privacyMedicineBusinessComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This section summarizes the ethical and legal considerations that will impact the creation and operation of neurological disease registries in Canada. This document is not meant to provide legal or ethical advice. In order to ensure that applicable laws and organizational policies are adhered to in an appropriate manner, it is recommended that legal advisors and relevant organizational representatives be consulted. For registries to succeed, it is critical to proactively consider legal and ethical issues such as consent and privacy. Additional ethical and legal considerations include: the involvement of Aboriginal people and their communities, languages and communication; setting up of biobanks; data management; data ownership; and conducting transparent registry operations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207