MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883145553 · doi:10.7202/1058274ar

“What Is PER?” Patient Engagement in Research as a Hit

2019· article· en· W2883145553 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jean‐Christophe Bélisle‐Pipon, Claudio Del Grande, Geneviève Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsPatient EmpowermentEmpowermentRules of engagementEngineering ethicsPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engaging patients in research conduct and agenda setting is increasingly considered as an ethical imperative, and a way to transcend views of patients as passive subjects by fostering their empowerment. However, patient engagement in research (PER) is still an emerging approach with debated definitional and operational frameworks. This song addresses the sometimes difficult encounter and elusive mutual understanding between researchers and patients. “What is PER?” is an impressionistic illustration of the challenges and issues that can be found in the universe of patient engagement in research.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207