MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W275227830

Engaging the Humanities? Research Ethics in Canada. (Applied Research)

2002· article· en· W275227830 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Owen

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Research Administration · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésResearch councilResearch ethicsAgency (philosophy)Political scienceThe artsResistance (ecology)SociologyLibrary sciencePublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Engineering ethicsSocial scienceLawEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction In 1997, after four years of consultation with the Canadian academic community, Canada's three national research funding agencies--the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Medical Research Council, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)--issued the Tri-Council Policy Statement Ethics in Human Research (TCPS). The councils required that Canadian universities and health research institutions implement the policy framework by autumn 1999 and apply it to all research funded by these three groups. In 2002, the three councils established the Inter-Agency Panel Research Ethics (PRE) to continue monitoring this process. This paper reports the results of survey the impact of the TCPS humanities scholars in Canada and raises questions about research practices in the humanities and the role of Research Ethics Board (REBs) also known as Institutional Research Boards (IRBs). The importance of this study is its findings about the lack of awareness of the TCPS or resistance to the application of what is perceived as biomedical, clinical model to research in the humanities, fine arts, and social sciences. This resistance to the ethical review of their research activities amongst humanists is not unique to Canada and serves as an alert to IRBs and sponsors with regard to compliance issues. Standards for Ethical Conduct of Research In The Humanities To 1997 In 1977, the Canada Council, the precursor to SSHRC, issued report entitled Ethics: Report of the Consultative Group Ethics. The Consultative Group was to advise on the application of general ethics principles that should be observed by researchers in the humanities and social sciences, (p. iv) including the creation of a common ethical code which institutions will be asked to apply. It also was to address the composition of institutional committees and procedures to be used by these committees. The Consultative Group (1977, p. 1) struggled to strike a proper balance between respect for the rights and sensibilities of the individual or collectivity and society's need for advancement of knowledge. The Consultative Group was prescient in its recognition that the economist, linguist, demographer, political scientist, and criminologist--even the historian, biographer, and archaeologist ... gather data through direct and indirect contact with people and can have an impact their lives. It is not therefore the discipline that determines the presence or absence of ethical considerations, but whether or not the methodology employed results in the research having direct impact human beings. (p. 5) The Consultative Group reinforced the principle that humanists must be alerted to the possibilities of ethical conflict in their work. This report became the basis for SSHRC's policy ethics for research involving human participants until 1997. 1999 Tri-Council Policy Statement The TCPS Ethics for Research Involving Human Subjects had lengthy gestation period. The Medical Research Council, reflecting the internationalization of standards of biomedical and clinical research, recognized need to revise its research ethics policies and, since underlying ethical principles are common to all disciplines, convinced SSHRC and NSERC of the reasonableness of common policy. After lengthy consultation (Canadian Psychological Association, 1996), the TCPS was approved by the councils' governing boards, administratively promulgated as requirement for individuals and teams who received research funding from the councils, and implemented by institutions that managed the grants. Recipient institutions were required to have their policies compliant with the TCPS by the autumn of 1999. The TCPS secretariat reviewed these policies and advised the institutions whether they were in compliance or if modifications were required. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,990
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,960

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,032
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,015
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0260,053
Communication savante0,0300,007
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,910
Tête enseignante GPT0,680
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Research AdministrationMême sujetEthics in Clinical ResearchTravaux en français237 207