MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4360987267 · doi:10.3395/reciis.v2i0.864

Questões éticas na pesquisa internacional e em estudos multicêntricos

2008· article· pt· W4360987267 on OpenAlexaff
Udo Schüklenk

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2008
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo apresenta um panorama das questões-chave relativas à pesquisa internacional e aos estudos multicêntricos, com especial ênfase na pesquisa biomédica internacional realizada nos países em desenvolvimento. Faz uma breve explicação das normas que regem a pesquisa biomédica internacional e uma exposição do debate sobre os padrões de cuidado a serem oferecidos pela pesquisa nos países em desenvolvimento e desenvolvidos. Descreve as questões ligadas à participação de grupos vulneráveis em pesquisas, com referência específica aos países em desenvolvimento. Por fim, o artigo discute temas relativos a cuidados de emergência e pós-ensaio, exploração, recompensa e indução indevida, voluntariedade e benefícios para as comunidades locais.

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)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.298
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.298
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.516
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→