Qualitative bereavement research: incongruity between the perspectives of participants and research ethics boards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central feature of the majority of qualitative research is the interactive nature of data collection which generally involves direct and meaningful communication between the individuals conducting the research and the individuals participating in the research. This core aspect of data collection, however, is frequently flagged as the most concerning or potentially harmful aspect of qualitative bereavement research by research ethics boards. Further, there has been a tendency to conceptualize the bereaved as vulnerable and in need of protection in the research process. Instead of thinking that a research interview which explores the complex, personal issues of grief would potentially harm participants, it may be seen as potentially beneficial to participants when the therapeutic aspects of the interview are considered. Participants’ responses to the interview process in two bereavement studies are offered as illustrations to complement the literature on the potential for the researcher‐participant relationship and the research interview to be perceived as beneficial by bereavement research participants.
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 | 0.359 | 0.342 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".