MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099854096

ST. BONIFACE GENERAL HOSPITAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMANS TERMS OF REFERENCE

2007· article· en· W7099854096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Politics and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionGeneral hospitalResource (disambiguation)Process (computing)General practiceConfidentialityHealth services research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

St. Boniface General Hospital values and promotes its collaborative role in research and is committed to ensuring that research conducted within its jurisdiction meets the highest scientific, ethical, and legal standards. The review process of the SBGH Research Review Committee (RRC) is to ensure that clinical research conducted at SBGH is adequately funded for any hospital resource utilisation; has received appropriate SBGH departmental approval; meets the applicable regulatory, ethical, and good clinical practice guidelines; and has received appropriate peer review. The Manitoba Personal Health Information Act (PHIA) stipulates that an institutional review committee is required to approve the disclosure of personal health information for research purposes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean Politics and SecurityFrench-language works237,207