MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1952889539

Ethics as Social Practice: Introducing the Debate on Qualitative Research and Ethics

2005· article· en· W1952889539 on OpenAlexaff
Wolff‐Michael Roth

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethical issues have become increasingly important in research involving human beings. It is fitting, therefore, that FQS devotes a debate focusing on issues that are concerned with the many layers of decision making when it comes to ethics in qualitative research. In this contribution, I use a personal context to formally introduce the ethics debate in general and the contributions to this issue in particular. I extend an invitation to readers to contribute to this debate of ethical issues in qualitative research. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs050195

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.253
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2530.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.872
GPT teacher head0.818
Teacher spread0.054 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207