Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pragmatic RCTs raise ethical issues that have not yet been adequately addressed. Consider a trial allocating nursing homes to high dose versus standard dose influenza vaccine: if designed as an individual patient RCT, informed consent would need to be sought for randomization, intervention and outcome assessment; but if treatments are implemented institution-wide as a policy intervention, is it acceptable to proceed without patient consent? Do patients need to be informed about the trial and if so, how? Some reject the research-practice distinction by advocating that low or no-risk pragmatic RCTs do not require more stringent oversight than clinical practice. Modifications to traditional consent models have been proposed, but it is unclear if they adequately protect patients’ rights. The lack of adequate ethical guidance for pragmatic RCTs presents a practical threat to the conduct of socially valuable research. If important research is to proceed, novel guidance is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.751 | 0.832 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".