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 OpenAlexaff
Jeff Blackmer

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.

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)0.417
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.370
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4170.370
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.077
Scholarly communication0.0210.012
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0290.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Medical & Health PolicySame topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207