MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132587765 · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.036715

Developing registries of volunteers: key principles to manage issues regarding personal information protection: Figure 1

2010· article· en· W2132587765 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emmanuelle Lévesque, Dominic Leclerc, Jack Puymirat, Bartha Maria Knoppers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
KeywordsConfidentialityNormativeKey (lock)Task (project management)Internet privacyComputer scienceComputer securityPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much biomedical research cannot be performed without recruiting human subjects. Increasingly, volunteer registries are being developed to assist researchers with this challenging task. Yet, volunteer registries raise confidentiality issues. Having recently developed a registry of volunteers, the authors searched for normative guidance on how to implement the principle of confidentiality. The authors found that the protection of confidentiality in registries are based on the 10 key elements which are elaborated in detail in the Canadian Standards Association Model Code. This paper describes how these 10 detailed key principles can be used during the developmental stages of volunteer registries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.389
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.389
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.418
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.125 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207