MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278832336

Un projet de recherche exempté d'évaluation éthique : Réflexions et questionnements sur l'article 2.1 de l'Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils

2012· article· fr· W2278832336 on OpenAlexafffund
Céline Durand, Marie-Chantal Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyLibrary scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude de cas présente l'article 2.1 de l'Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils, permettant désormais à certains projets de recherche qualitative à risque minimal d'être exempté d'évaluation éthique.Cependant, son application soulève des questionnements.This case study presents the Article 2.1 of the Tri-council Policy Statement, which now allows some qualitative research with minimal risk to be exempt from ethics review.However, its application raises questions.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.035
Scholarly communication0.0170.012
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal)Same topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207