Whose agenda is it? Regulating health research ethics in Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Labrador, the NunatuKavut (formerly Labrador Inuit Métis) have begun to introduce a rigorous community-based research review process. We conducted a study with leaders and health care workers in and beyond the NunatuKavut community of Labrador, asking them what should be emphasised in a community review. We also sought to identify whether and how community review should be distinct from the centralised, “institutional” research ethics review that would be the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador’s impending provincial health research authority. In this article we report on our findings with the aim of providing strategies and direction for researchers, research ethics boards, and Aboriginal communities dealing with dual-level ethics review. We argue for the adoption and use of a consistent label for community review of research (“Community Research Review Committee”) as distinct from research ethics boards. We provide suggestions for the development of separate roles and responsibilities for community review of research to ensure that its tasks are clearly understood and delineated. Our objective is to promote a form of community research review, distinct from the “ethics” review of research ethics boards, that explicitly attends to research in the context of ongoing colonialism, assimilation, and exoticism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads 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".