MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281770384 · doi:10.1007/s11019-022-10091-2

How to evaluate the quality of an ethical deliberation? A pragmatist proposal for evaluation criteria and collaborative research

2022· article· en· W4281770384 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdou Simon Senghor, Éric Racine

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine Health Care and Philosophy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsDeliberationPragmatismQuality (philosophy)EpistemologyEngineering ethicsPhilosophy of medicineSociologyManagement sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.696
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.754
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6960.754
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.009
Bibliometrics0.0210.010
Science and technology studies0.0240.186
Scholarly communication0.0500.061
Open science0.0230.029
Research integrity0.0520.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMedicine Health Care and PhilosophySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207