COMITÊ DE ÉTICA EM PESQUISA E A RESPONSABILIDADE CIVIL DO PESQUISADOR: UMA ANÁLISE SOBRE A CONSTITUCIONALIDADE DAS RESOLUÇÕES Nº 466, DE 2012 E Nº 510, DE 2016 DO CONSELHO NACIONAL DE SAÚDE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to verify whether there is compliance of Resolutions 466/2012 and 510/2016 of the National Health Council with the Federal Constitution and the current infra-constitutional legislation, as conditioning norms for research with human beings within the system CEP/CONEP. During the investigation, we analyze certain principles related to research freedom, university autonomy, health and the physical, mental and social well-being of the participating subjects, making it necessary to consider values. The adopted methodology was basically qualitative approach, theoretical focus, with descriptive objective and bibliographic documentary technical procedure. In the end, it was observed that these standards respect the Federal Constitution with regard to the didactic-scientific autonomy of university teaching institutions for conducting scientific and technological research. However, they go beyond powers of regulatory body by establishing rules that are in the field of Civil Law, with regard to the researcher's civil liability institute, revealing an obstacle to the development of national research.
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 | 0.045 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".