MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279491633

Ethical Considerations of Dissemination and Restitution of Findings in Global Health Research

2013· article· en· W2279491633 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Anne‐Marie Turcotte‐Tremblay, Federica Fregonese, Nazmul Alam

Bibliographic record

VenuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPolitical scienceLibrary scienceHumanitiesSociologyArtLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude de cas porte sur les obligations éthiques concernant l'étendue et la portée des stratégies de dissémination et de restitution des connaissances dans un contexte de recherche en santé mondiale.This case study discusses ethical obligations regarding the extent and scope of knowledge dissemination and restitution strategies in the context of global health research.

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)0.658
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.855
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6580.855
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.021
Science and technology studies0.0090.045
Scholarly communication0.0330.017
Open science0.0160.020
Research integrity0.0330.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.022

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal)Same topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207