MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162572165 · doi:10.3109/10398561003665577

College Activities and the Ethics of Advertising

2010· article· en· W2162572165 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Ryan, Garry Walter, Michael Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAdvertisingMedical educationMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to examine whether advertising in the College journals and at RANZCP Congress, in particular from pharmaceutical companies, gives rise to a conflict of interests, and to discuss how this should be managed. CONCLUSIONS: While advertising will often represent a conflict of interests, banning advertising from the College journals or Congress is unlikely to the best way to manage this. Conflicts of interest may be better managed by development of clear policies on advertisements, broadening the advertising base (i.e. beyond pharmaceutical companies), checking the accuracy of advertisements, and, in the case of Congress, ceasing sponsored symposia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207