Ethical Considerations in Infodemic Management: Systematic Scoping Review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During health emergencies, effective infodemic management has become a paramount challenge. A new era marked by a rapidly changing information ecosystem, combined with the widespread dissemination of misinformation and disinformation, has magnified the complexity of the issue. For infodemic management measures to be effective, acceptable, and trustworthy, a robust framework of ethical considerations is needed. OBJECTIVE: This systematic scoping review aims to identify and analyze ethical considerations and procedural principles relevant to infodemic management, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of these practices and increasing trust in stakeholders performing infodemic management practices with the goal of safeguarding public health. METHODS: The review involved a comprehensive examination of the literature related to ethical considerations in infodemic management from 2002 to 2022, drawing from publications in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Policy documents and relevant material were included in the search strategy. Papers were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and core thematic areas were systematically identified and categorized following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We analyzed the literature to identify substantive ethical principles that were crucial for guiding actions in the realms of infodemic management and social listening, as well as related procedural ethical principles. In this review, we consider ethical principles that are extensively deliberated upon in the literature, such as equity, justice, or respect for autonomy. However, we acknowledge the existence and relevance of procedural practices, which we also consider as ethical principles or practices that, when implemented, enhance the efficacy of infodemic management while ensuring the respect of substantive ethical principles. RESULTS: Drawing from 103 publications, the review yielded several key findings related to ethical principles, approaches, and guidelines for practice in the context of infodemic management. Community engagement, empowerment through education, and inclusivity emerged as procedural principles and practices that enhance the quality and effectiveness of communication and social listening efforts, fostering trust, a key emerging theme and crucial ethical principle. The review also emphasized the significance of transparency, privacy, and cybersecurity in data collection. CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the pivotal role of ethics in bolstering the efficacy of infodemic management. From the analyzed body of literature, it becomes evident that ethical considerations serve as essential instruments for cultivating trust and credibility while also facilitating the medium-term and long-term viability of infodemic management approaches.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 découle