MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107045659 · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103

Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities

2001· review· en· W2107045659 on OpenAlexaff
Günther Eysenbach, J. E. Till

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsThe InternetWorld Wide WebComputer scienceData scienceQualitative researchInternet privacySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was first published in the British Medical Journal Volume 323 Issue 7321. BMJ allows authors to use their own articles for their own non commercial purposes. www.bmj.com Reproduced with permission from Dr. James E. Till

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)0.746
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.755
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7460.755
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.015
Science and technology studies0.0150.069
Scholarly communication0.0150.019
Open science0.0080.017
Research integrity0.0160.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.826
GPT teacher head0.756
Teacher spread0.070 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations965
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207