MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023604061 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1031668

Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants

2004· article· en· W2023604061 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Conrad V. Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityObligationMoral obligationHuman researchPsychologyEngineering ethicsMedicineComputer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The disclosure of study findings to participants in research reflects the moral obligation of researchers, founded in the ethical principle of respect for human dignity, to avoid treating human participants as a means to an end. Human dignity is respected through proper procedures of obtaining

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)0.273
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.525
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2730.525
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.455
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.132 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations75
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207