MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399336986 · doi:10.20529/ijme.2015.030

Ethics and equity in research priority-setting: stakeholder engagement and the needs of disadvantaged groups

2015· article· en· W2399336986 on OpenAlexaff
Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Sangeeta Rana, Chanté Karimkhani, Vivian Welch, Rebecca Armstrong, Kevin Pottie, Robert P. Dellavalle, Purushottam Dhakal, Sandy Oliver, Damian Francis, Mona Nasser, Sally Crowe, Baran Aksut, Roberto D Amico

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Medical Ethics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsBruyèreColumbia College
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsDisadvantagedEquity (law)StakeholderPublic relationsHealth careHealth equityProcess (computing)Stakeholder engagementPoliticsBusinessPopulationPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A transparent and evidence-based priority-setting process promotes the optimal use of resources to improve health outcomes. Decision-makers and funders have begun to increasingly engage representatives of patients and healthcare consumers to ensure that research becomes more relevant. However, disadvantaged groups and their needs may not be integrated into the priority-setting process since they do not have a "political voice" or are unable to organise into interest groups. Equitable priority-setting methods need to balance patient needs, values, experiences with population-level issues and issues related to the health system.

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)0.582
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.682
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5820.682
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.127
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.637
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.002 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Medical EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207