MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983095919 · doi:10.1136/bmj.f2838

The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials: precis for researchers and research ethics committees

2013· article· en· W1983095919 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsStatement (logic)Research ethicsEngineering ethicsEthics committeeConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsResearch designCluster randomised controlled trialPolitical scienceAlternative medicineClinical trialMedicinePsychologyMEDLINERandomized controlled trialSociologyLawEngineeringSocial sciencePublic administrationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cluster randomised trials have unique features that complicate the application of standard ethics guidelines for research. The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials was developed to provide detailed guidance to researchers, research ethics committees, regulators, and sponsors as they seek to fulfil their respective roles. This article describes the development of the Ottawa Statement and outlines key implications for researchers and research ethics committees.

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.

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)0.409
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.639
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4090.639
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.906
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.207 · 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