MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158192393 · doi:10.2202/1948-4682.1100

The Ethical Obligations of Researchers in Protecting the Rights of Human Research Subjects

2010· article· en· W2158192393 on OpenAlex
Jeff Blackmer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Medical & Health Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsCanadian Medical Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclaration of HelsinkiNuremberg trialsHumanityNazismHuman rightsLawMedical researchPolitical scienceResearch ethicsWorld War IIHelsinki declarationDeclarationHuman researchScientific misconductInformed consentWar crimeEngineering ethicsMedicineInternational lawAlternative medicinePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Post World War II trials of Nazi crimes against humanity also exposed the horrific and deadly experiments conducted by the Nazi physicians on prisoners in the concentration camps. These trials resulted in the adoption of the “Nuremberg Code” for medical research, which was codified and adopted by the 18th World Medical Association (WMA) General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, in June 1964. The “Declaration of Helsinki,” as it became known, and its amendments and clarifications represent a universal standard for the conduct of research and human subject care. Assurance of scientific integrity, appropriateness and utility of research, and protection of human subjects are at the core of ethical principles to be upheld regardless of the geographic location where research is conducted.

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.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.009
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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.318 · 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