MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105900323 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/zg249

Open Sharing of Data at a Canadian Neuroscience Institute

2025· article· W7105900323 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData sharingOpen scienceOpen dataInformed consentNeuroinformaticsBrain researchResearch ethicsNeurolawInformation privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open sharing of research data is crucial to advancing our understanding of the human brain and discovering treatments for neuropsychiatric disorders. It is critical, however, to balance these goals with participant rights to privacy and confidentiality. We discuss the ethics of practicing open neuroscience at Baycrest Academy for Research and Education (BARE), a small but prominent Canadian neuroscience research institute based in a geriatric hospital. Through a systematic documentary analysis of applications for ethical approval, consent forms and study protocols, we report on data sharing trends and participant consent rates at the institute. We also provide actionable recommendations for institutes to support their researchers in sharing neuroscience data openly, ethically, and responsibly.

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.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.1080.174
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.766
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.085 · 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