MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770344055 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2017.1388876

Does Consent Form Follow Function?

2017· letter· en· W2770344055 on OpenAlexaff
Cory E. Goldstein, Jamie Brehaut, Charles Weijer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingInformed consentFunction (biology)AuthorizationPsychologyProcess (computing)MedicineSocial psychologyAlternative medicineComputer scienceBiologyComputer securityPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dickert and colleagues (2017) seek to reframe the concept of informed consent for clinical research. Traditionally understood as the process by which individuals provide autonomous authorization to...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.462
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207