MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104371016 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)61100-x

Who will implement WHO's statement on public disclosure of trial results?

2015· letter· en· W2104371016 on OpenAlexaff
Françoise Βaylis, Matthew Herder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)MEDLINEMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.361
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.361
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.016
Scholarly communication0.0180.014
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.2930.174
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.009

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 head0.650
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.073 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207