MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987159326 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.603813

What About Author Order and Acknowledgments? Suggestions for Additional Criteria for Conceptual Research in Bioethics

2011· letter· en· W1987159326 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elise Smith, Renaud Boulanger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersMississippi State University
KeywordsScholarshipBioethicsOrder (exchange)SociologyLibrary scienceGraduate researchPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We commend Resnik and Master (2011) not only for bringing ethical problems to light in conceptual bioethics research but also for attempting to elaborate practical criteria for authorship. The stat...

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.385
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.385
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0350.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1530.127

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207