MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986755221 · doi:10.1186/gb-2012-13-5-158

Power to the people: a wiki-governance model for biobanks

2012· article· en· W1986755221 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward S. Dove, Yann Joly, Bartha Maria Knoppers

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation CentreMcGill Genome Centre
FundersGenome Canada
KeywordsBiobankCorporate governanceAgency (philosophy)Power (physics)Public relationsBusinessPublic administrationPolitical scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyBiologySocial scienceBioinformaticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biobanks are adopting various modes of public engagement to close the agency gap between participants and biobank builders. We propose a wiki-governance model for biobanks that harnesses Web 2.0, and which gives citizens the ability to collaborate in biobank governance and policymaking.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0150.029
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.165 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome BiologySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207