MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2683897270 · doi:10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000201

Where do they come from? A call for complete transparency regarding the origin of human tissues in research

2017· editorial· en· W2683897270 on OpenAlexaff
Sabine Hildebrandt, William E. Seidelman

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Context (archaeology)Subject (documents)Medical researchPublishingHuman researchResearch ethicsObject (grammar)Political scienceLawPublic relationsLibrary scienceSociologyPsychologyMedicineHistoryEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePathologyEngineeringCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At a recent conference on ‘Medical ethics in the 70 years since the Nuremberg Code’ in Vienna, the task of a final panel of experts was to discuss the question whether to use, or not to use, data gained from coercive medical research in National Socialist Germany.

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)0.698
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.633
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6980.633
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0200.203
Scholarly communication0.0650.159
Open science0.0120.050
Research integrity0.0770.136
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.365
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.100 · 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
DomainReporting
GenreEditorial

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207