MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402581967 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-014971

Advancing collaborative research for health: why does collaboration matter?

2024· review· en· W4402581967 on OpenAlexaff
Carla Saénz, Timothy Krahn, Maxwell J. Smith, Michelle M. Haby, Sarah Carracedo, Ludovic Revéiz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthMedicineHealth services researchNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The calls for health research to be collaborative are ubiquitous-even as part of a recent World Health Assembly resolution on clinical trials-yet the arguments in support of collaborative research have been taken for granted and are absent in the literature. This article provides three arguments to justify why health research ought to be collaborative and discusses trade-offs to be considered among the ethical values guiding each argument.

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)0.356
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.460
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3560.460
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.060
Scholarly communication0.0270.046
Open science0.0050.025
Research integrity0.0240.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.574
GPT teacher head0.758
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
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207