MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906567312 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.586

Consensus Statement on Public Involvement and Engagement with Data-Intensive Health Research

2019· article· en· W2906567312 on OpenAlexaff
Mhairi Aitken, Mary P. Tully, Carol Porteous, Simon Denegri, Sarah Cunningham‐Burley, Natalie Banner, Corri Black, Michael Burgess, Lynsey Cross, Johannes van Delden, Elizabeth Ford, Sarah Fox, Natalie Fitzpatrick, Kay Gallacher, Catharine Goddard, Lamiece Hassan, Ron Jamieson, Kerina Jones, Minna Kaarakainen, Fiona Lugg‐Widger, Kimberlyn McGrail, Anne McKenzie, Rosalyn Moran, Madeleine J. Murtagh, Malcolm Oswald, P. Alison Paprica, Nicola Perrin, Emma Richards, John Rouse, Joanne Webb, Donald J. Willison

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilWellcome TrustAcademy of Medical SciencesBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Social Care and Health Research
KeywordsPremiseKey (lock)Public relationsPublic engagementStatement (logic)Public healthField (mathematics)Problem statementPolitical scienceKnowledge managementMedicineManagement scienceComputer scienceNursingEngineeringLawComputer securityEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This consensus statement reflects the deliberations of an international group of stakeholders with a range of expertise in public involvement and engagement (PI&E) relating to data-intensive health research. It sets out eight key principles to establish a secure role for PI&E in and with the research community internationally and ensure best practice in its execution. Our aim is to promote culture change and societal benefits through ensuring a socially responsible trajectory for innovations in this field. Our key premise is that the public should not be characterised as a problem to be overcome but a key part of the solution to establish socially beneficial data-intensive health research for all.

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)0.302
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.305
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3020.305
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0150.020
Research integrity0.0420.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.833
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations103
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207