MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2056115206 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1050058

The ethics of research involving Canada's Aboriginal populations

2005· article· en· W2056115206 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Research ethicsData sciencePublic relationsMedicineEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate this opportunity to describe the involvement of Aboriginal communities in the interpretation and dissemination of our research findings.[1][1] We fully agree that relationships with Aboriginal communities are essential for conducting relevant and helpful investigations of the health of

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.032
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0070.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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