MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W340944419

A New Perspective on Research Ethics

2011· article· en· W340944419 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. Deschamps

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésResearch ethicsPerspective (graphical)Public relationsWork (physics)Engineering ethicsSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction In 2011, research is not, as it used to be, the work of a single individual, working in his laboratory, trying to discover something that has yet to be discovered. (1) As stated by Grady, advances in knowledge, technology and resources have changed the face of research and have transformed the research (2) Research, today, is mostly done in settings where researchers work in teams that compete against each other. (3) Researchers get their funding from public agencies as well as from private sponsors which have, often times, a vested interest in the research being conducted by these teams. (4) All of the above players are part of what is now called the research enterprise. Recently with the advent of participatory research, consumers have become part of this research enterprise. (5) The research enterprise comprises many segments. It can be seen as a chain of activities that are intertwined. Research often times starts with an idea or even a hunch. The researcher then formalizes his idea or hunch in a research protocol that usually sets out his objectives, his methodology, the different procedures to be followed, the expected results, and the risks and inconveniences to which research participants will be exposed. Given the ethical rules that exist, the researcher will have to lay down in a properly written consent form the information that needs to be brought to the attention of a research participant so that the latter can freely provide informed consent to the research that is being proposed. Then, the research proposal as well as the consent form are submitted to a research ethics board for its review and approval as prescribed by many regulatory instruments such as the TCPS2 (2010) and the Declaration of Helsinki. At the implementation stage of the research protocol, the research activities are often monitored by different bodies to ensure that the protocol is properly implemented, and that the ethical and legal rules that apply are followed. For example, sponsors will audit studies to determine if the studies are in compliance with the protocol and will identify possible protocol violations. Ethics review is an integral part of the research enterprise where people come together and work together in order to achieve a common goal; that is, to improve the knowledge that will provide a better understanding of certain realities of life including how people behave, why they behave in certain ways, why people are sick and what can be done in order to improve their health or cure their disease. (6) Unfortunately at the present time, the ethics review process is sometime seen as an obstacle or a hurdle that researchers need to overcome in order to do their research the way they wish. The research ethics board is seen by many as a necessary evil operating in a vacuum, as a nitpicking entity that can harm research, and as inefficient and ineffective in protecting the welfare and the rights of research participants. (7) This paper sheds new light on the research enterprise in general, and on research ethics in particular. First, it looks at the importance of adopting a systems approach in a research setting where all the players are called upon to work in harmony so as to achieve the desired result, namely-the development of new knowledge through the ethical conduct of all those involved in the research enterprise. Second, the paper focuses on what needs to be done in order to measure the quality of what is now being done with respect to the ethics review process and the overall oversight system related to the protection of research participants. As such, it lays the groundwork for future investigations into the assessment of quality with respect to the ethics review processes and oversight systems in the field of research. 1. Systems Approach In many venues, research ethics is seen as a means of regulating research, of dictating how research activities involving humans should be conducted, and as a means of protecting research participants against the 'evils of research', including for example self-interest and profit-making motives, as well as conflicts of interest -- all of which have contributed to the abuse and deaths of research participants. …

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)0,142
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,974
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,753

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1420,105
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0040,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,138
Communication savante0,0310,035
Science ouverte0,0050,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0260,033
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,002

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 Opus0,951
Tête enseignante GPT0,778
Écart entre enseignants0,173 · 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'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetEthics in Clinical ResearchTravaux en français237 207