MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012447582 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m422

Improving researchers’ conflict of interest declarations

2020· article· en· W3012447582 on OpenAlexaff
Quinn Grundy, Adam G. Dunn, Lisa Bero

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflict of interestComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enforced, structured reporting and processes to assess relevance are required to make conflict of interest disclosures fit for purpose, argue Quinn Grundy, Adam Dunn, and Lisa Bero

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)0.750
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.939
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7500.939
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0090.023
Scholarly communication0.0340.027
Open science0.0160.014
Research integrity0.0680.090
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.026

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 head0.900
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations62
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207