Auditing the ‘Social’ Using Conventions, Declarations, and Goal Setting Documents: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The state of the ‘social’ that individuals, social groups and societies experience are a focus of international conventions, declarations and goal setting documents. Many indicators of the ‘social’ and measures of well-being that contain sets of indicators of the ‘social’ exist to ascertain the state of the ‘social’ of individuals, social groups, and societies. Marginalized groups are well known to have problems with the ‘social’ they experience. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) and similar phrases are used in policy discussions to deal with ‘social problems’ within research, education, and general workplace environments encountered by women, Indigenous peoples, visible/racialized minorities, disabled people, and LGBTQ2S+. The prevention of the worthening of the ‘social’ is one focus of science and technology governance and ethics discussions. Many health professions are also concerned about the ‘social’ such as the well-being of their clients and their roles as stated by many of their associations include being advocates and change agents. The objective of the study was to ascertain how the ‘social’ is engaged with in conjunction with the following international documents (“Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, “Convention on the Rights of the Child”, “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”, “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”, “UN Framework Convention on Climate Change”, “transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development” and “UN flagship report on disability and development Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with persons with disabilities”; from now on called “the documents”). A scoping review using the academic databases SCOPUS, Web of Science, databases accessible under Compendex, and the databases accessible under EBSCO-HOST, coupled with a manifest hit-count coding approach was uses to answer five research questions: (1) Which terms, phrases, and measures of the ‘social’ are present in the literature searched (2) Which of the social issues flagged in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are present in the academic abstracts mentioning the other eight documents? (3) Which EDI frameworks, phrases and social groups covered under EDI are present in the literature covered. (4) Which technologies, science and technology governance terms and ethics fields are present in the literature covered? (5) Which health professions are mentioned in the literature covered? The results reveal vast gaps and opportunities to engage with the ‘social’ in relation to “the documents” covered for all five questions.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,151 | 0,318 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,053 | 0,049 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».