The Genesis and Development of Research Ethics Committees in Canada, 1960–1978
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Following World War ii, many medical investigators continued their ambitious experimental interventions as rationalized, rather than justified, trials. In Canada, there were hardly any legally proscriptive or prescriptive instruments to regulate clinical experimentation until the 1960s. What was ethical could rightly be established only in the course of devising clinical research protocols and undertaking the procedures thereof. This paper examines an historical trajectory shaping human-subject research and its regulation in Canada. I argue that public disclosures of human experimentation, court litigation resulting from clinical research, international standardization of regulations on biomedical investigation, and the proliferation of clinical trials induced the evolution of human research ethics and the elaboration of guidelines to regulate it. In this process, Canadian physician-investigators adopted British and American guidelines on the conduct of ethically acceptable clinical research and modified them according to local circumstances. The first research ethics committees emerged at the Canadian university-affiliated teaching hospitals, where the investigative practices revealed and clarified the changing meanings of human research ethics.
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 | 0.081 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".