MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W66851449 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0433

Ethical conduct of journal editors

2004· editorial· en· W66851449 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Simon N. Young, Russell T. Joffe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsCanadian Journal of Communication (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisconductScrutinyScientific misconductPolitical scienceEthical codeMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyEngineering ethicsLawAlternative medicineEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decade, there has been increasing concern about scientific misconduct. Using the keyword “misconduct,” the number of articles retrieved on MEDLINE averaged 100 per year for the decade 1993–2002 compared with an average of 28 per year for the preceding decade. Guidelines for preventing and dealing with misconduct have been developed by many organizations, but only recently has the role of the medical journal come under scrutiny. Late last year, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) published a draft code of conduct for medical editors. 1

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.340
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.340
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0220.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.422 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207