Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Public Population Project in Genomics and Society (P³G) is a not-for profit international consortium with members from more than 40 countries. Its objective is to lead, catalyze, and co-ordinate international efforts and expertise in order to optimize the use of population studies, biobanks, research databases, and other similar health and social science research infrastructures. The year 2011-2012 witnessed a plethora of special issues of journals on the return of results but few discussed the particular situation of population studies that serve as resources for future unspecified research. P³G considers it important to propose a policy that distinguishes between the contexts of population research and disease (clinical) research involving patients and then delineates actual and future obligations. The objectives of this Policy Statement are to: (1) delineate the particular characteristics of population studies, (2) distinguish the circumstances surrounding access by researchers to such studies, and (3) develop a framework for the return of research results and incidental findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.216 | 0.349 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.117 | 0.056 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".