Cultivating a Culture of Research Ethics Packet: Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (1998 With 2000, 2002, 2005 Amendments); Giving Voice to the Spectrum: Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (June 2004); Interpreting the TCPS: A Collection of Official Responses From the Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics, Prepared In 2003, to Community Requests for Interpretations of the Tri-Council Policy Statement (December 2004): Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS); Interpreting the TCPS: Volume II. the Second Collection of Official Responses From the Interagency Advisory Panel and Secretariat on Research Ethics to Community Requests for Interpretations of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) (December 2006); DVD: The Ethics of Research Involving Indigenous Peoples. Report of the Indigen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) is a body of external experts established in November 2001 by three Canadian Research Agencies to support the development and evolution of their joint research ethics policy the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS).
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 | 0.092 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.058 |
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".