MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367030010 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0019.011

Planning for Multi-Site Ethics Review

2005· article· en· W4367030010 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carolyn S. Dewa, Jennifer Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineEthics committeeEngineering ethicsInstitutional review boardPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyManagement sciencePublic administrationEngineeringHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article is a brief report that draws on the literature and interviews with CMHEI investigators to explore the challenges of obtaining research ethics board approval for multi-site studies. It goes on to suggest how the complexity of multi-site approval could be addressed in terms of study budget, staff time, and study timelines.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.919
GPT teacher head0.728
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrity

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207