MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992058147 · doi:10.1007/s10730-013-9230-4

Bioethics Consultation Practices and Procedures: A Survey of a Large Canadian Community of Practice

2013· article· en· W1992058147 on OpenAlexaffabout
RA Greenberg, Kyle W. Anstey, Rosanna Macri, Ann Heesters, Sally Bean, Randi Zlotnik Shaul

Bibliographic record

VenueHEC Forum · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSickKids FoundationToronto Western HospitalOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsMedical lawPhilosophy of medicineHealth careSociologyWork (physics)Public relationsLawPolitical scienceMedicineEngineering ethicsAlternative medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHEC ForumSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207