MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391312625 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-077908

Avoiding conflicts of interest and reputational risks associated with population research on food and nutrition: the Food Research risK (FoRK) guidance and toolkit for researchers

2024· article· en· W4391312625 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katherine Cullerton, Jean Adams, Nita G. Forouhi, Oliver Francis, Martin White

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAddis Ababa UniversityUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of GhanaSimon Fraser UniversityDeakin UniversitySouth African Medical Research CouncilUniversity of OxfordUniversity of NottinghamNational University of SingaporeUniversity College LondonMonash UniversityUniversité LavalUniversity of SouthamptonUmeå UniversitetUniversity College CorkNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchHarokopio UniversityYork UniversityAmsterdam University Medical CentersMedical Research CouncilLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
KeywordsConflict of interestFork (system call)PopulationSubject (documents)Public relationsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceMedicineBusinessFinancePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers wishing to interact with the food industry can be subject to conflicts of interest and reputational risks, but new guidance from Cullerton and colleagues should help researchers navigate this tricky territory, make informed decisions, and minimise adverse outcomes.

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)0.465
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.698
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4650.698
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.028
Scholarly communication0.0240.025
Open science0.0070.027
Research integrity0.0350.049
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.909
GPT teacher head0.685
Teacher spread0.224 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207