MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037414519 · doi:10.1177/1081180x08089318

On the importance of intellectual property rights for e-science and the integrated health record

2008· article· en· W2037414519 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppina D’Agostino, Chris Hinds, Marina Jirotka, Charles R. Meyer, Tina Piper, Mustafizur Rahman, David Vaver

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Informatics Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsIntellectual propertyData sharingCorporate governanceBusinessKnowledge managementScale (ratio)Medical researchPublic relationsPolitical scienceData scienceComputer scienceMedicineLawAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An integrated health record (IHR) that enables clinical data to be shared at a national level has profound implications for medical research. Data that have been useful primarily within a single clinic will instead be free to move rapidly around a national network infrastructure. This raises challenges for technologists, clinical practice, and for the governance of these data. This article considers one specific issue that is currently poorly understood: how intellectual property (IP) relates to the sharing of medical data for research on large-scale electronic networks. Based on an understanding of current practices, this article presents recommendations for the governance of IP in an integrated health record.

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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.064
Scholarly communication0.0360.070
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Informatics JournalSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207