Framework for ethical international academic partnerships in family medicine: The Besrour Papers: a series on the state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop an ethical framework for collaboration in international academic partnerships in family medicine. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: A subgroup of the Besrour Centre of the College of Family Physicians of Canada including family medicine and bioethics experts began to collaborate in 2014 to undertake the development of an ethical framework and tools for the establishment of ethically sound international academic partnerships. METHODS: Following 2 consultative workshops and a wider consultation process with the Besrour Centre global community, the authors developed an ethical framework and tools for approval by the Besrour Centre leadership in November 2017. REPORT: Partnerships are essential to family practice and to the field of international development. The flawed nature of many North-South research partnerships underlines the importance of and need for delineating core principles for ethically sound partnerships, of which 10 have been identified in this process: accountability, cost and efficiencies, excellence, equity, humility, justice, leadership, reciprocity, respect for self-determination, and transparency. Based on these principles, a decision-making framework was created to translate these values into actions and to promote a cohesive and transparent structure for discussions. Fostering fairness, transparency, and consistency in decision making reduces the potential for inequity in a partnership, leading to lasting relationships that endure beyond the scope of a partnership agreement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".