MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037720176 · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7529.1403

Designing research in vulnerable populations: lessons from HIV prevention trials that stopped early

2005· review· en· W2037720176 on OpenAlexaff
Edward J. Mills, Sonal Singh, Jerome Amir Singh, James Orbinski, Mitchell Warren, Ross Upshur

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineTenofovirPublic healthDrug trialOpposition (politics)Political scienceFamily medicinePublic relationsNursingLawPathologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activist groups have been successful in promoting research and better treatment for people with HIV infection, but they can also stop trials if their views are not considered

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 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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.964
GPT teacher head0.765
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207