MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065302798 · doi:10.1080/08989621.2012.692971

Disciplining Bioethics: Towards a Standard of Methodological Rigor in Bioethics Research

2012· article· en· W2065302798 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

VenueAccountability in Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsDisciplineEngineering ethicsRigourVariety (cybernetics)SociologyResearch ethicsSocial sciencePolitical scienceEpistemologyLawPhilosophyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary bioethics research is often described as multi- or interdisciplinary. Disciplines are characterized, in part, by their methods. Thus, when bioethics research draws on a variety of methods, it crosses disciplinary boundaries. Yet each discipline has its own standard of rigor--so when multiple disciplinary perspectives are considered, what constitutes rigor? This question has received inadequate attention, as there is considerable disagreement regarding the disciplinary status of bioethics. This disagreement has presented five challenges to bioethics research. Addressing them requires consideration of the main types of cross-disciplinary research, and consideration of proposals aiming to ensure rigor in bioethics research.

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)0.632
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.461
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6320.461
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.921
GPT teacher head0.775
Teacher spread0.146 · 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