79 How do you share documents with collaborators external to your institution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Goals: Using secure systems for sharing documents with external collaborators is essential for all researchers. These documents may include protected health information (PHI) or sensitive materials like protocols, study reports, DSMB reports, publications, presentations, abstracts, and statistical analysis plans (SAPs). Methods/Study Population: We surveyed the ACTS Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group (BERD-SIG) to gather information about the systems they are currently using or have used in the past for document sharing with external collaborators. The survey focused on the security of these systems, particularly in relation to sharing documents containing PHI. In addition, the survey included questions about various system features of interest. These features included version control, simultaneous editing by multiple users, and access rights management, such as the ability to assign different permissions (e.g., read-only, write, and download) to different individuals. We also invited participants to provide feedback on any additional positive or negative aspects of the systems they use. Results/Anticipated Results: We received 28 completed survey responses. Respondents had an option for choosing more than one system. The top current systems reported were Microsoft Teams (OneDrive, SharePoint) (n = 16), Box (n = 11), Google Docs/Drive (n = 10), and Dropbox (n = 6). Among other systems listed individually were Filelocker, REDCap, Slack, Website, Significant Media Shuttle, and Zulip. Notably, 15 responses indicated the respondents were unsure if their system is secure for sharing documents containing PHI. Respondents also offered feedback on both the positive and negative aspects of these systems. For example, a key advantage of Box was its password-controlled access. However, its incompatibility with office tools and the challenges for external collaborators attempting to access the system were noted as drawbacks. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Utilizing secure institutional document-sharing systems and understanding their features significantly affects the effectiveness and security of collaborations among researchers, particularly with external partners. This knowledge is especially crucial when sharing documents containing sensitive patient and study data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".