MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973404359 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030330

Regulating the Market in Human Research Participants

2006· article· en· W1973404359 on OpenAlexafffund
Trudo Lemmens, Paul B. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaOntario GenomicsOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsIncentiveCorporate governancePolitical scienceStrengths and weaknessesPublic relationsLaw and economicsRegulatory reformPublic economicsPublic administrationBusinessEconomicsPsychologyLawSocial psychologyFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Policy Forum allows health policy makers around the world to discuss challenges and opportunities for improving health care

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)0.242
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.308
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2420.308
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.025
Scholarly communication0.0300.031
Open science0.0100.025
Research integrity0.1630.068
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.011

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 head0.811
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.152 · 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
DomainIncentives
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207