MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943588654 · doi:10.1126/science.aax0892

Consent insufficient for data release

2019· letter· en· W2943588654 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Nicol, Lisa Eckstein, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Pascal Borry, M. M. Burgess, Wylie Burke, Drc Chalmers, Mildred K. Cho, Edward S. Dove, Stephanie M. Fullerton, Ryuchi Ida, Jane Kaye, Barbara A. Koenig, Spero M. Manson, Kimberlyn McGrail, Eric M. Meslin, Kieran C. O’Doherty, Barbara Prainsack, Mahsa Shabani, Holly K. Tabor, Adrian Thorogood, Jantina de Vries

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome CentreMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of GuelphCouncil of Canadian Academies
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversitetet i OsloUniversity of TasmaniaUniversity of OxfordWellcome TrustUniversity of Cape TownNordForskUniversity of Washington
KeywordsInternet privacyBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their Policy Forum “Toward unrestricted use of public genomic data” (25 January, p. 350), R. I. Amann <i>et al</i>. argue that once data has been cleared for release to the public domain by institutions, it should be open for use without further restrictions. However, they neglect the key point that researchers and their institutions are entrusted by research participants, funders, and others with weighing the pros and cons of public data release. By suggesting that informed consent can provide a straightforward path to data release, they overlook evidence that once people understand their options, only a little more than half opt for open data sharing, and some refuse data sharing altogether.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.842
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207