MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6995722010

Policy Writing as Dialogue: Drafting an Aboriginal Chapter for Canada's Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans

2010· other· en· W6995722010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCaveolin-1 and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPublic policyResearch ethicsPolicy developmentEthical issuesPolicy analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Writing policy that applies to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada has become more interactive as communities and their representative organizations press for practical recognition of an Aboriginal right of self-determination. When the policy in development is aimed at supporting “respect for human dignity” as it is in the case of ethics of research involving humans, the necessity of engaging the affected population becomes central to the undertaking.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0370.015
Scholarly communication0.0230.006
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0310.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicCaveolin-1 and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207