MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392686729 · doi:10.1097/ee9.0000000000000299

Ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists: 2023 revision

2024· article· en· W4392686729 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth A. Etzel, Nivine Abbas, Michael Anastario, Adetoun Mustapha, Olayinka Osuolale, Atanu Sarkar, Ireneous N Soyiri, Emile Whaibeh, Colin L. Soskolne

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Epidemiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationTransparency (behavior)NormativeAccountabilityPolitical scienceEnvironmental health ethicsRelevance (law)Engineering ethicsPublic relationsPublic healthEnvironmental healthMedicineHealth policyHealth careLawEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognition of the importance to environmental epidemiology of ethical and philosophical deliberation led, in 1996, to the establishment of Ethics Guidelines for the profession. In 1999, these guidelines were adopted by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. The guidelines were revised in 2012 and again in 2023 to ensure continued relevance to the major issues facing the field. Comprising normative standards of professional conduct, the guidelines are structured into four subsections: (1) obligations to individuals and communities who participate in research; (2) obligations to society; (3) obligations regarding funders/sponsors and employers; and (4) obligations to colleagues. Through the 2023 revision of the Ethics Guidelines, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology seeks to ensure the highest possible standards of transparency and accountability for the ethical conduct of environmental epidemiologists engaged in research and public health practice.

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)0.311
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.311
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0220.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.020

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental EpidemiologySame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207