MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993376497 · doi:10.1016/s0955-3959(03)00130-0

A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects

2003· article· en· W1993376497 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Timothy Christie, Evan Wood, Martin T. Schechter, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Drug Policy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health Care
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsScrutinyStatement (logic)Research ethicsHuman researchGovernment (linguistics)LimitingPolitical scienceEthical codeLawPublic relationsEngineering ethicsPublic administrationEngineering

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)0.145
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.234
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1450.234
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0180.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0210.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.484
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.076 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Drug PolicySame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207