Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of placebo surgeries can be ethically justified under certain conditions depending on the current state of evidence existing for surgical procedures, methodological considerations of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), and the welfare of research participants. It may be impossible to eliminate all risks associated with placebo surgery, but the mitigation of risk has moral weight and is already practiced outside of health research. If ethics is a reflection of social and cultural values of the society in which it operates, one can reasonably conclude that certain placebo procedures can be used in surgical RCTs. However, in situations whereby quality of life is irrevocably lost, as in the case of placebo procedures that directly or indirectly invoke serious and irreversible harm, the undertaking of such a trial would be inappropriate. Research ethics boards (REBs) may play a role in research involving placebo surgery by: i) ensuring clinical equipoise between intervention and placebo treatments; ii) increasing transparency between the research ethics board, the researcher, and the participant; and iii) ensuring that adequate time is given for the individual to contemplate participation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".