The Social and Policy Contexts of the New Brunswick Declaration on Research Ethics, Integrity, and Governance: A Commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the social and policy implications of the "New Brunswick Declaration on Research Ethics, Integrity, and Governance" developed at the Ethics Rupture Summit in Fredericton, N.B., Canada, October 2012. It discusses the Declaration and the Summit in relation to the usual criticism and analysis of research ethics regimes, and considers reasons why the immense prior literature has had little impact on regulatory bodies. Because the Declaration, like the Illinois White Paper, has quickly achieved considerable attention relative to most other such documents, and because much further deliberation has evolved since the Summit, we offer here a commentary on each of the eight principles contained in the Declaration in the hope of further stimulating discussion and consolidating the progress that now seems underway.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.213 | 0.459 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.128 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".