MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604499710 · doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0186-8

Erratum to: The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines

2017· erratum· en· W2604499710 on OpenAlexaff
Dearbhail Bracken‐Roche, Emily Bell, Mary Ellen Macdonald, Éric Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2017
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth services researchHealth administrationVulnerability (computing)Public healthResearch ethicsHealth policyQuality of Life ResearchEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMedicinePublic administrationSociologyNursingComputer scienceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

production process and were therefore incorrect when published.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0270.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.019

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 head0.840
GPT teacher head0.745
Teacher spread0.094 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHealth Research Policy and SystemsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207