MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559845945 · doi:10.1177/0840470416669926

Appropriate ethics review is required

2016· article· en· W2559845945 on OpenAlexaff
Don Flaming

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsEthical issuesResearch ethicsQuality (philosophy)MedicinePsychologyKnowledge managementBusinessComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health leaders manage many types of risk. One type of risk that may be underrecognized is the ethical risk in the many projects and activities that are done regularly besides research (eg, program evaluation, quality improvement, and health innovation). Applying clinical, personal, professional, and organizational ethics can help address the risks but are insufficient by themselves or in combination. Each different type of project or activity requires an ethics review that is appropriate for that activity. Health leaders must first acknowledge that ethical risks exist in many of the activities occurring in their organization and then support the different types of ethics review required to adequately protect and respect people and their information.

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)0.322
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.560
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3220.560
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0370.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.025

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 head0.527
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.067 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207