MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392637652 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/yn2j9

Data Hazards as an ethical toolkit for neuroscience

2024· preprint· en· W4392637652 on OpenAlexaff
Susana Román García, Ceilidh Welsh, Nina H. Di Cara, David C. Sterratt, Nicola Romanò, Melanie I. Stefan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroscienceCognitive scienceData scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Data Hazards framework is intended to encourage thinking about the ethical implications of data science projects. It takes the form of community-designed data hazard labels, similar to warning labels on chemicals, that can encourage reflection and discussion on what ethical risks are associated with a project and how they can be mitigated. In this article, we explain how the Data Hazards framework can apply to neuroscience. We demonstrate how the hazard labels can be applied to one of our own projects, on the computational modelling of postsynaptic mechanisms.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.162 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207