Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for IRB Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical Writings: Book Notes20 May 2008Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for IRB MembersBernard M. Dickens, PhD, LLDBernard M. Dickens, PhD, LLDFrom the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00021 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for IRB MembersMazur DJ. 252 pages. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ Pr; 2007. $29.95. ISBN 9780801885013. Order at www.press.jhu.edu.Field of medicine: Human biomedical research.Format: Softcover book.Audience: Institutional research board (IRB) members and officers.Purpose: To aid IRB review of ethical aspects of biomedical research.Content: The author systematically explains ethical review of clinical research protocols used to equip IRB members to protect interests of human participants. He explains terms and concepts that reviewers must understand for compliance with U.S. regulations and describes the materials that ... Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 20 May 2008Volume 148, Issue 10Page: 796KeywordsComputer and information sciencesDecision makingInstitutional review boardsQualitative studiesQuestionnairesResearch designResearch ethicsSoftware toolsSurvey researchSystematic reviews ePublished: 20 May 2008 Issue Published: 20 May 2008 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.095 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.090 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".