Ethical Issues concerning Participants in Community Surveys of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Considering that a literature review yielded limited information on ethical issues concerning participants in child and adolescent mental health community surveys, the authors identify and discuss some of these issues. METHOD: First, the authors present the ethical principles set forth by the National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (NCBHR) and evoked by the 1998 Tri-Council Policy Statement, underscoring their importance as guidelines for establishing ethical standards for research with children. Second, they describe the general objectives and currently preferred methods of child psychiatric surveys. Third, they discuss issues pertaining to the validity and innocuousness of structured interview guides, the limitations of parental authorization and children's assent, and the complexity of clinical interventions based on ethical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: The authors emphasize the importance of developing empirical knowledge regarding the questions raised and bringing the social stakeholders concerned into the debate.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.395 | 0.474 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".