MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468248009

[The right not to know, in the German legislation (Part I)].

2005· article· en· W2468248009 on OpenAlexaff
Jochen Taupitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Health Sciences Research
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight to knowWaiverGermanLegislationNeed to knowLawPerceptionRepresentation (politics)Political sciencePsychologyLaw and economicsSociologyComputer scienceComputer securityPhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

The right not to know entails being aware of a reality which corresponds to the mental representation one makes of a circumstance through external sensory perceptions or through intellectual actions from which one derives conclusions. The author discusses the different manifestations of this right not to know, from the right not to be informed to a general right of waiver.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Legal analysis of the right not to know in German legislation; medical law and bioethics, not research practice.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

It analyzes a legal and ethical right in German legislation.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Legal-ethical discussion of the right not to know in German law, not research practice.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0200.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.008

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical and Health Sciences ResearchFrench-language works237,207