MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312872714 · doi:10.1177/174701610800400212

Written Consent: Sometimes More Trouble than it is Worth?

2008· article· en· W2312872714 on OpenAlexaff
David D. Pothier

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Ethics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformed consentResearch ethicsPsychologyInternet privacyLawPolitical scienceMedicineAlternative medicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Informed consent is crucial in most research but written consent is not without its drawbacks. Written consent serves to protect the researcher more than it serves to protect the participant and this can present a barrier to their relationship. In certain circumstances it can undermine the trust important in research. For ‘simple’ studies, where treatments are largely interchangeable or where consent is implied, written consent can be considered not only to be unnecessary, but actually harmful. Research ethics committees should consider removing the requirement for written consent in these studies.

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)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.578
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.578
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.074
Scholarly communication0.0150.039
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0220.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.870
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.190 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch EthicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207