Attitudes of Research Ethics Committee Members Toward Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: The Need for More Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Select research areas affecting individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) are understudied, resulting in their often being routinely excluded from drug trials and other medically based research. Many factors contributing to this exclusion have been identified, but little has been written about the effects of research ethics committees on inhibiting ID research. By exploring the role of ethics committees in research, and reviewing the ethical guidelines and other factors that direct their decisions, this article argues that committee members’ attitudes toward ID often affect their response to proposals involving this group of individuals. The authors note that in many countries, research ethics guidelines provide little direction on how to weigh conflicting ethical duties toward vulnerable individuals. As a result, committee members often adopt unsystematic approaches toward ethical dilemmas, creating an environment where their attitudes can have a disproportionate effect on their decisions. The authors suggest that the attitudes of research ethics committee members toward individuals with ID must be studied in further detail if we are to understand and address the exclusion of individuals with ID from medical research.
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.
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 | 0.030 | 0.618 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 it