MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026377988 · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-32

Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to Implementation Science

2011· article· en· W2026377988 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplementation Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaiverResearch ethicsMedicineHealth services researchEngineering ethicsEthics committeeSubject (documents)Human researchHealth administrationHealth informaticsHealth carePublic healthPolitical scienceLawPublic administrationLibrary scienceNursingComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The requirement for ethics review of studies submitted to Implementation Science has been unclear. Therefore, in this editorial, we set out our requirements for ethics committee review of experimental and non-experimental studies. For any study that meets the criteria of human subject research (which includes research on healthcare providers), irrespective of study design, we will require proof of either satisfactory ethics committee review or of the granting of an official exemption or waiver.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.834
GPT teacher head0.763
Teacher spread0.071 · 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