MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401687724 · doi:10.7202/1112302ar

Addressing Ethical Challenges Related to Community and Patient Engagement in Health Research

2024· article· en· W4401687724 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Emily Cordeaux, Natasha Y. Sheikhan, Rhonda Boateng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity engagementMEDLINECommunity-based participatory researchPsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsParticipatory action research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this post-workshop summary, we describe three ethical challenges related to engaging people with lived experience as partners in health research. We share learnings and reflective prompts from our workshop delivered as part of the Canadian Bioethics Society Workshop and Community Forum held in May 2023.

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)0.244
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.263
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2440.263
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0460.049
Scholarly communication0.0310.014
Open science0.0080.038
Research integrity0.0240.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.873
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207