MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7066451868

Historians and the Tri-council policy statement on research involving humans

2020· article· en· W7066451868 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)Research ethicsSocial researchSocial policyQualitative researchPublic policyAdvisory committeeHuman science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the 2003 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE), the Canadian Federation for the Social Sciences and Humanities, and the PRE Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee piloted a consultation with researchers from the humanities and social sciences. The consultation was in response to criticisms of the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Research Involving Humans (TCPS). Since its inception in 1994, researchers in the socials sciences and humanities have argued that the TCPS recommends procedures that are more suited to quantitative studies than to qualitative research.

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)0.343
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.424
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3430.424
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0210.023
Scholarly communication0.0280.021
Open science0.0090.011
Research integrity0.0850.094
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.022

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 head0.347
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.088 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→