MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092335069 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.080136

In praise of undercover research

2008· letter· en· W2092335069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carlos G. Herrera

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraiseComputer scienceInformed consentData sciencePsychologyMedicineAlternative medicineSocial psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is right to be wary of research conducted without the participants' consent. There is especially good reason to look closely when scientists try to answer questions that seem trivial or that involve substantial risk to the unaware participants. In the worst cases, we could imagine researchers

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.016
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.1000.132
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.016

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207