MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802564322 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.171088

Call for a pan-Canadian approach to ethics review in Canada

2018· article· en· W2802564322 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stuart G. Nicholls, Karine Morin, Laurel Evans, Holly Longstaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch ethicsKey (lock)Engineering ethicsEthics committeeData scienceComputer scienceMedicinePolitical sciencePublic administrationComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS Obtaining research ethics approval is an important component of research conducted in humans. Increasingly, researchers undertake multicentre studies, which can require them to seek approvals from a number of research ethics boards (REBs). Many researchers have complained about

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)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.326
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.326
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0320.037
Scholarly communication0.0320.014
Open science0.0110.025
Research integrity0.0320.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207