MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799282311 · doi:10.26685/urncst.39

Research Fundamentals: Data Collection, Data Analysis, and Ethics

2018· article· en· W2799282311 on OpenAlexaff
Bismah Jameel, Umair Majid

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingData collectionKey (lock)Data scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceManagement scienceSociologySocial sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the third and final article of a three-part series that follows up the discussion on the fundamentals of writing research protocols for quantitative, clinical research studies. In this editorial, the authors discuss key elements of data collection, data analysis, and the ethical considerations and implications that come with clinical research. This editorial is the concluding segment on providing guidelines for undergraduate researchers interested in publishing their protocol in the Undergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Sciences and Technology (URNCST) Journal.

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)0.189
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1890.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.017
Science and technology studies0.0040.040
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0010.026
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 head0.723
GPT teacher head0.686
Teacher spread0.037 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207