MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2014580202 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4498

Proposed new research ethics guidelines generate debate

2013· article· en· W2014580202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miriam Shuchman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclaration of HelsinkiDeclarationResearch ethicsEngineering ethicsMedical researchMedical ethicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceData scienceOperations researchMedicineInformed consentLibrary scienceLawAlternative medicinePathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Draft changes to the Declaration of Helsinki , which turns 50 next year, are causing controversy among bioethicists who monitor the global guide to conducting ethical research involving humans. The World Medical Association (WMA) invites comments on the revisions ([www.wma.net/en/20activities/

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)0.373
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.557
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3730.557
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0370.022
Open science0.0130.011
Research integrity0.0720.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.629
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.024 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→